100 Hours of....Corruption
 

Pelosi pushes through a minimum wage bill under the guise of "100 hours", that has exceptions benefiting California companies and companies she is a significant stockholder in.

"The loophole pleases the tuna corporations that employ thousands of Samoans in canneries there at $3.26 an hour -- an industry-specific rate set by the U.S. Department of Labor. They have lobbied Congress for years, arguing that imposing the federal minimum wage on Samoa would cripple the economy by driving the canneries to poor countries that don't require a minimum wage.
One of the biggest opponents of the U.S. minimum wage there is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., is headquartered in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi."

Nice job, Wicked Witch of the West.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
The loophole pleases the tuna corporations that employ thousands of Samoans in canneries there at $3.26 an hour -- an industry-specific rate set by the U.S. Department of Labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who did Pelosi appoint to head the U.S. Department of Labor?
Since this has been going on for years, and $3.26 was already under the old minimum wage, isn't this actually all Clinton's fault?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The loophole pleases the tuna corporations that employ thousands of Samoans in canneries there at $3.26 an hour -- an industry-specific rate set by the U.S. Department of Labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who did Pelosi appoint to head the U.S. Department of Labor?
Since this has been going on for years, and $3.26 was already under the old minimum wage, isn't this actually all Clinton's fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, any bill could override the Secretary of Labor.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, any bill could override the Secretary of Labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a Republican-controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, and an 8 year Republican administration that has used 1 veto, how many bills were attempted to override this?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, any bill could override the Secretary of Labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a Republican-controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, and an 8 year Republican administration that has used 1 veto, how many bills were attempted to override this?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many minimum wage bills were there

Apparently she's backed off the "no amendments" policy, since she got caught. Now Samoa will be covered.

Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

Yup, Republicans are more corrupt than Dems. <cough>

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, any bill could override the Secretary of Labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a Republican-controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, and an 8 year Republican administration that has used 1 veto, how many bills were attempted to override this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pelosi Democrats claim to be champions of the poor, protecting them from exploitation by powerful corporations while simultaneously claiming minimum wage laws do not hurt business. Her obvious hypocrisy here speaks volumes. Also to those who are wont to dismiss the bias in the press, if this had been a Republican bill, such hypocrisy on a core party issue would be trumpeted. I doubt the Pelosi exception has received much more than a whisper.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

This isnt football copernicus, people's lives are at stake. Blindly following one party is tantamount to Ohio state vs. Michigan.

Jever notice that Air America actually rips Dems instead of blindly carrying their water, like Rush, Hannity, et al.?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

This is key, showing intent:

"The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws. "

The expectation of 100 hours of clean government was just a bit too high.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

1. Pelosi doing a favor isn't necessarily the reason that American Samoa was exempted. If the cost of living in Samoa is low, it might not make sense to impose the minimum wage. I don't know what the cost of living is, but I bet its lower than the States.

2. I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt. Her constituents probably want that company to be healthy for the jobs it provides.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard

[/ QUOTE ]
true

[ QUOTE ]
and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]
false

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the cost of living in Samoa is low, it might not make sense to impose the minimum wage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how diehard Dems can make any argument about the MW that uses ecomnomic realities as a portion of it after ignoring them in ever other emotional appeal.

[ QUOTE ]
2. I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt. Her constituents probably want that company to be healthy for the jobs it provides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just admit it smells like week old tuna and we'll move on.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the MW bill is clearly politics. Economic rationalization here, none there. If the Dems are hypocrits, why don't we ever hear from you about the Republican hypocrisy of the last decade? Why bring out the bullhorn now? Aren't they both hypocrits? Didn't we hear this bipartisanship/cooperative BS every election cycle from Republicans too?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]

Jever notice that Air America actually rips Dems instead of blindly carrying their water, like Rush, Hannity, et al.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparantly you don't actually listen to Rush, Hannity, et al. or you'd know better.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isnt football copernicus, people's lives are at stake.

[/ QUOTE ]

<u>Headline</u> : "Bush Eats Live Babies"

<u>Copernicus</u> : "Babies corrupt! May have been hiding WMDs!"


q/q

Oh Really.............
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Pelosi doing a favor isn't necessarily the reason that American Samoa was exempted. If the cost of living in Samoa is low, it might not make sense to impose the minimum wage. I don't know what the cost of living is, but I bet its lower than the States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then by this logic other US territories with low costs of living should be exempt as well...

[ QUOTE ]
2. I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt. Her constituents probably want that company to be healthy for the jobs it provides.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect if a Repub did this you would be the first to criticize this act. But a Dem gets a pass from you... Also is it not OK for the constituents of Repub districts to want their local companies to be "healthy"?

Personally, I think a federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. It takes a VERY creative interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to say the federal govt has this power...

Re: Oh Really.............
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think a federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. It takes a VERY creative interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to say the federal govt has this power...

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the one we have currently where growing wheat on your own land for your own use is "interstate commerce" (because you COULD have engaged in commerce instead).

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice job, Wicked Witch of the West.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean Ms. Bolshevik?

-Zeno

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

oh that's terrible - let me take back my vote -

on second thought, let me know when her corruption has resulted in the deaths of 3K Americans and a hundred thousand Iraqi Civilians. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

rb

Re: Oh Really.............
 

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think a federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. It takes a VERY creative interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to say the federal govt has this power...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how any interpretation of the constitution could possibly give the Federal gov't this authority. Of course I have never heard anyone attempt to explain how it could be.

Any takers?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Pelosi doing a favor isn't necessarily the reason that American Samoa was exempted. If the cost of living in Samoa is low, it might not make sense to impose the minimum wage. I don't know what the cost of living is, but I bet its lower than the States.

2. I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt. Her constituents probably want that company to be healthy for the jobs it provides.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. And lower than every other American territory that isnt exempted? It was the only one, till she got caught. Get real.

2. Youre right it isnt, necessarily. But it is still hypocritical given the campaign rhetoric about "transparency", "bipartisanship", "eliminating earmarks", etc. It IS corrupt if she has a substantial ownership interest in the company, which one report said she did. It SMELLS and may actually be corrupt if they made substantial campaign contributions.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the MW bill is clearly politics. Economic rationalization here, none there. If the Dems are hypocrits, why don't we ever hear from you about the Republican hypocrisy of the last decade? Why bring out the bullhorn now? Aren't they both hypocrits? Didn't we hear this bipartisanship/cooperative BS every election cycle from Republicans too?

[/ QUOTE ]

If indeed we did (and I dont remember it), it was still the Dems bullhorn to bring out. They want the power, then their screw ups will be broadcast like every slip GWB (allegedly) made, and in a lot more civil fashion.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Pelosi doing a favor isn't necessarily the reason that American Samoa was exempted. If the cost of living in Samoa is low, it might not make sense to impose the minimum wage. I don't know what the cost of living is, but I bet its lower than the States.

2. I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt. Her constituents probably want that company to be healthy for the jobs it provides.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. And lower than every other American territory that isnt exempted? It was the only one, till she got caught. Get real.

2. Youre right it isnt, necessarily. But it is still hypocritical given the campaign rhetoric about "transparency", "bipartisanship", "eliminating earmarks", etc. It IS corrupt if she has a substantial ownership interest in the company, which one report said she did. It SMELLS and may actually be corrupt if they made substantial campaign contributions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't smell corruption if it was a powdery line on a mirror in front of you and you sucked it into your nostrils with a $100 bill. phulueese.

rb

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the MW bill is clearly politics. Economic rationalization here, none there. If the Dems are hypocrits, why don't we ever hear from you about the Republican hypocrisy of the last decade? Why bring out the bullhorn now? Aren't they both hypocrits? Didn't we hear this bipartisanship/cooperative BS every election cycle from Republicans too?

[/ QUOTE ]

If indeed we did (and I dont remember it), it was still the Dems bullhorn to bring out. They want the power, then their screw ups will be broadcast like every slip GWB (allegedly) made, and in a lot more civil fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

More Civil? Lol. Most of what I hear and read is pretty venomous. On both sides. Stop pretending Republicans are any less civil or less hypocritcal. Everyone looks crappy here. Dems whine about unfair treatment, and yeah, dish a little back, and probably will continue to do so. Republicans spend the last 6 years neutering the minority better than any in recent history, and get all hot and bothered when they have to taste just a little bit of their own medicine, after just a week.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans spend the last 6 years neutering the minority better than any in recent history, and get all hot and bothered when they have to taste just a little bit of their own medicine, after just a week.


[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, hey! The republicans suddenly don't like democracy! No wonder they are not called democrats! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans spend the last 6 years neutering the minority better than any in recent history, and get all hot and bothered when they have to taste just a little bit of their own medicine, after just a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one's had a long majority in both houses and the executive in recent history. Just the first 2 years under Clinton, and before that the Democrats had control of the House for 40 years, with several full controls by the Dems. To be honest, considering how poorly the Republicans have been treated as minority since the last time they had complete control under Eisenhower, I'm surprised it went so easy on the Dems.

Anyway, both sides like to complain about how unfair the system is to them, but neither seems terribly interested in improving it. I wonder why that is? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the MW bill is clearly politics. Economic rationalization here, none there. If the Dems are hypocrits, why don't we ever hear from you about the Republican hypocrisy of the last decade? Why bring out the bullhorn now? Aren't they both hypocrits? Didn't we hear this bipartisanship/cooperative BS every election cycle from Republicans too?

[/ QUOTE ]

If indeed we did (and I dont remember it), it was still the Dems bullhorn to bring out. They want the power, then their screw ups will be broadcast like every slip GWB (allegedly) made, and in a lot more civil fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

More Civil? Lol. Most of what I hear and read is pretty venomous. On both sides. Stop pretending Republicans are any less civil or less hypocritcal. Everyone looks crappy here. Dems whine about unfair treatment, and yeah, dish a little back, and probably will continue to do so. Republicans spend the last 6 years neutering the minority better than any in recent history, and get all hot and bothered when they have to taste just a little bit of their own medicine, after just a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans neutered the minority? I guess there are no justices that should be sitting that aren't because the minority decided to abandon 200 years of tradition. I guess there were no bipartisan bills passed in the 6 years. I guess the Democrats never had an amendment make it into a bill, even though they were ostensibly allowed to. I guess we have no viable immigration bill because the Republicans railroaded what they wanted through. I guess no Democrats voted for the war on Iraq.

History is too fresh to rewrite it, sorry.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

Yes history is too fresh to rewrite.

100 hours &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; 6 years.

How anybody can even post this with the likes of Frist, Santorum, Hastert, Foley, Delay, etc, etc, ad nasuem with a straight face is beyond me.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes history is too fresh to rewrite.

100 hours &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; 6 years.

How anybody can even post this with the likes of Frist, Santorum, Hastert, Foley, Delay, etc, etc, ad nasuem with a straight face is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy........

Just get into the mindset of being a blind, 100% demagogue party hack.

They exist on both sides. This one in particular is obvious.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

You people expect too much of Pelosi just because she is a woman. All politicians are the same whether male or female.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the MW bill is clearly politics. Economic rationalization here, none there. If the Dems are hypocrits, why don't we ever hear from you about the Republican hypocrisy of the last decade? Why bring out the bullhorn now? Aren't they both hypocrits? Didn't we hear this bipartisanship/cooperative BS every election cycle from Republicans too?

[/ QUOTE ]

If indeed we did (and I dont remember it), it was still the Dems bullhorn to bring out. They want the power, then their screw ups will be broadcast like every slip GWB (allegedly) made, and in a lot more civil fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

More Civil? Lol. Most of what I hear and read is pretty venomous. On both sides. Stop pretending Republicans are any less civil or less hypocritcal. Everyone looks crappy here. Dems whine about unfair treatment, and yeah, dish a little back, and probably will continue to do so. Republicans spend the last 6 years neutering the minority better than any in recent history, and get all hot and bothered when they have to taste just a little bit of their own medicine, after just a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans neutered the minority? I guess there are no justices that should be sitting that aren't because the minority decided to abandon 200 years of tradition. I guess there were no bipartisan bills passed in the 6 years. I guess the Democrats never had an amendment make it into a bill, even though they were ostensibly allowed to. I guess we have no viable immigration bill because the Republicans railroaded what they wanted through. I guess no Democrats voted for the war on Iraq.

History is too fresh to rewrite it, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is too fresh, so what was that all that about?

Yes, that is clearly what I meant. I guess there are only two scenarios: fair treatment and absolute repression. Therefore if there were not "no amendments" or "no bipartisan bills" then it was not absolute repression, and hence everything was kosher. If you want links detailing the committee level bullying and general dirty tactics, ask for it. But you've read them already, because you keep up on this stuff. You just choose to ignore it.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. I hate to say this, but doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt. Her constituents probably want that company to be healthy for the jobs it provides.


[/ QUOTE ]

SO you are conceeding that raising the min wage costs jobs? I mean I everyoen pretty much agrees on that. I guess not even those on the left deny that they are counting on enough people to not understand this that are willing to put poor people out of work to be in power. I guess we can no longer start with the premise that people run for office to help people.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing ovation for William Jefferson. Reid's property sham. Whines for "minority party" rights...when they were the minority, ignore them when they are the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the MW bill is clearly politics. Economic rationalization here, none there. If the Dems are hypocrits, why don't we ever hear from you about the Republican hypocrisy of the last decade? Why bring out the bullhorn now? Aren't they both hypocrits? Didn't we hear this bipartisanship/cooperative BS every election cycle from Republicans too?

[/ QUOTE ]

If indeed we did (and I dont remember it), it was still the Dems bullhorn to bring out. They want the power, then their screw ups will be broadcast like every slip GWB (allegedly) made, and in a lot more civil fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

More Civil? Lol. Most of what I hear and read is pretty venomous. On both sides. Stop pretending Republicans are any less civil or less hypocritcal. Everyone looks crappy here. Dems whine about unfair treatment, and yeah, dish a little back, and probably will continue to do so. Republicans spend the last 6 years neutering the minority better than any in recent history, and get all hot and bothered when they have to taste just a little bit of their own medicine, after just a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans neutered the minority? I guess there are no justices that should be sitting that aren't because the minority decided to abandon 200 years of tradition. I guess there were no bipartisan bills passed in the 6 years. I guess the Democrats never had an amendment make it into a bill, even though they were ostensibly allowed to. I guess we have no viable immigration bill because the Republicans railroaded what they wanted through. I guess no Democrats voted for the war on Iraq.

History is too fresh to rewrite it, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is too fresh, so what was that all that about?

Yes, that is clearly what I meant. I guess there are only two scenarios: fair treatment and absolute repression. Therefore if there were not "no amendments" or "no bipartisan bills" then it was not absolute repression, and hence everything was kosher. If you want links detailing the committee level bullying and general dirty tactics, ask for it. But you've read them already, because you keep up on this stuff. You just choose to ignore it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you choose to inflate negotiating from a majority position as "bullying". there is a difference between negotiating as the majority and totally excluding the minority.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

"doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt."

I agree it's completely standard, but it's the very definition of corruption.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
SO you are conceeding that raising the min wage costs jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yeah. I've said before that the number of jobs available probably goes down when you increase the Minimum Wage. My point has always been that the increased wage for those who keep their jobs vastly outweighs the lost wage of those who lose their jobs and can't find new ones.

[ QUOTE ]
"doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt."

I agree it's completely standard, but it's the very definition of corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. When I said that Pelosi is doing Del Monte favors, I should have said that she is more sensitive to their concerns. But so what? Just because Pelosi takes their phone calls doesn't mean that constitutes corruption.

Also, for it to be truly corrupt, Pelosi needs to get something out of it. Is there any evidence that she's on the take? Of course not. Is there any evidence that Del Monte is making campaign contributions to the Dems in exchange for favors? No. Is there even any evidence that they contribute to the Dems at all.

Is anyone here arguing that doing something because your constituent asks you to is automatically corruption?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, yeah. I've said before that the number of jobs available probably goes down when you increase the Minimum Wage. My point has always been that the increased wage for those who keep their jobs vastly outweighs the lost wage of those who lose their jobs and can't find new ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron-

Care to provide your reasoning? If a minimum wage kicks out the less productive and redistributes their earning opportunities to the more productive, it must be creating an income gap (albeit between the poor and poorer). Seems like if you believe in diminishing marginal utility, the best thing would be to stop protecting the more productive so that the poorer can have more work opportunity.

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point has always been that the increased wage for those who keep their jobs vastly outweighs the lost wage of those who lose their jobs and can't find new ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what about the people you've just forced out of a job? You've also made it much more difficult to hire them again unless they become more productive all of the sudden. Or perhaps sentenced them to a life of crime and begging. If you close off the legal job market, what's left?

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SO you are conceeding that raising the min wage costs jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yeah. I've said before that the number of jobs available probably goes down when you increase the Minimum Wage. My point has always been that the increased wage for those who keep their jobs vastly outweighs the lost wage of those who lose their jobs and can't find new ones.

[ QUOTE ]
"doing favors for companies in your district is completely standard and does not mean Pelosi is corrupt."

I agree it's completely standard, but it's the very definition of corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. When I said that Pelosi is doing Del Monte favors, I should have said that she is more sensitive to their concerns. But so what? Just because Pelosi takes their phone calls doesn't mean that constitutes corruption.

Also, for it to be truly corrupt, Pelosi needs to get something out of it. Is there any evidence that she's on the take? Of course not. Is there any evidence that Del Monte is making campaign contributions to the Dems in exchange for favors? No. Is there even any evidence that they contribute to the Dems at all.

Is anyone here arguing that doing something because your constituent asks you to is automatically corruption?

[/ QUOTE ]

iron,

Have you ever run head-on into the "old boy" network in your day-to-day life?

It comes in many shapes, sizes and colors.

What Andy is getting to is that in this particular case, this example is reflective of one of the variations.

There are many layers to, and causes of corruption.

I always like to ask myself the "Why" question when I sense something is amiss.

"Why" did so-and-so do this or that?

List ALL of the options.....exclude NONE of them for consideration.

See where that line of reasoning takes you......

Re: 100 Hours of....Corruption
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or you choose to inflate negotiating from a majority position as "bullying". there is a difference between negotiating as the majority and totally excluding the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're both exaggerating a little bit. It also wasn't "total exclusion" or always "negotiation". There are notable Republicans I'd even vote for who haven't become hypocritical big-spend neo-cons. But there were quite a few corrupt and powerful leadership figures in the Republican party who barely sniffed the word "negotiation". Mostly the House. Not so much in the Senate, which is a whole different dynamic.