Bipartisanship Lie; GOP Implodes; Poll Goodies

[Grey]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/1...cial-nominees/

[ QUOTE ]
After calling for bipartisanship, President Bush surprised Senate Democrats with plans to renominate a controversial list of judges - some of whom may be unacceptable even to a few Republican senators. "It's an unfortunate signal," said one senior Democratic Senate aide.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has not received the nominations yet. As word spread about the nominations, however, the committee's Republican Chairman Arlen Specter told reporters: "It is obvious they cannot move during the lame-duck session." After January, he added, questions about the fate of the nominees should be "directed to someone else." [...]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat slated to become the Judiciary Committee chairman in January, said in a statement that "the president is choosing partisanship over progress and division over unity, at the expense of a fair and independent judiciary. This is exactly the kind of political game-playing that prompted Americans to demand change and a new direction in Washington. The signal the president is sending by renominating these controversial candidates is regrettable. But I hope the president will work with us in charting a new direction in the next congressional session, by choosing consensus nominees who unite instead of divide America."

[/ QUOTE ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...uffpost/034011

[ QUOTE ]
The President's team 'has a plan' regarding the seemingly irrational obsession with keeping John Bolton working at the United Nations. We just don't know what that plan is. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote Bolton down, decisively and definitively, if called to vote this week.

Senators Bill Frist and Norm Coleman will probably then stomp around on the floor of the Senate bemoaning what Dems and a wayward Republican voice, calling for a revived centrist ethic, did to their poster child for crude, pugnacious nationalism.

Then, the White House -- angry at the rejection of Bolton -- could call an end to the bipartisan dance, accuse the Dems of obstructionism and try to "re-appoint" Bolton to his current job as a recess appointee -- thwarting not only the Senate that the White House strongly controlled this past year -- but also thwarting the next Congress that they control less well and with which they will have a tougher time finding common ground with this type of strident behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can anyone make a case that it was the Democrats who violated the post-election bipartisanship pledges first? Besides ExSubmariner not wanting the Government Reform Committee to do its job: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1

A Gallup/USA Today poll taken Nov. 9-12

[ QUOTE ]
31 percent wanted Bush to have more influence over the direction the nation takes next year
61 percent wanted the Democrats in Congress to have more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The new favorability ratings from Gallup:

[ QUOTE ]
Democratic Party: 57% favorable, 33% unfavorable
Republican Party: 35% favorable, 58% unfavorable

[/ QUOTE ]

Luntz: Immigration Top Reason Voters Left GOP in 06: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/15/81848/328

This is a demographic development that could produce a Democratic majority in America for decades to come.

And they've got Trent Lott whipping minorities again? What the hell is happening.

[canis582]

Rove reallllllllly spoiled the republicans. Without his single vision, the republicans' message is not going to be tight.

[lehighguy]

I don't see how immigration is going to work for Dems. Thier union base hates it. And they incensintly blame foriegners for why American companies can't compete.

A good college friend of mine comes from a family business in Vietnam. They are already hurting from American farm subsidies, and now Vietnam's new trade agreement may get blocked by Dems.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Luntz: Immigration Top Reason Voters Left GOP in 06: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/15/81848/328

This is a demographic development that could produce a Democratic majority in America for decades to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned this before... It's astonishing to me that people can't grasp the implications of the growing Latino population. Even if you don't recognize the powerful moral and economic case for loosened immigration restrictions, the rhetoric and this moronic wall run a real chance of pushing the GOP out of power for a long time.

The best policy initiative Bush ever made, and it's the one time Congress decided not to lounge around like the passel of corrupt yes-men they are.

[adios]

Now that the Democrats have a majority, a simple up and down vote should shoot down the judges they don't want as well as Bolton. What's the big problem with having an up and down vote??????????????????????

[adios]

It seems clear that Bush and the Democrats are not too far off regarding immigration reform. Seems like a fillibuster would be the only way for the Republicans to derail it.

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that the Democrats have a majority, a simple up and down vote should shoot down the judges they don't want as well as Bolton. What's the big problem with having an up and down vote??????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]The reason the founding fathers gave us divided government was to make it harder for the majority to abuse the minority, and force compromise. This increases the representativeness of our democracy. If you oppose that representativeness then you oppose democracy.

During Republican rule in the House many rules were changed to severely weaken the minority party. It will be interesting to see if the Dems have the balls to keep all those rules and let Republicans reap what they have sewn ... sowed?

Interesting note on immigration: Bush said at a news conference right after the election that a Democratic Congress is better for him to get a comprehensive guest worker program.

[Annies_Beaver]

[ QUOTE ]
powerful moral and economic case for loosened immigration restrictions

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the economic case for importing poverty? The government is already on pace for bankruptcy with our current population due to entitlement promises. How will allowing more poor people into the country -- people who will be a net drain on America's resources -- going to help us economically?

Plus, America already has a guest worker program. Companies and farmers can already bring in as many guest workers as they want. The problem is that the program is "too expensive" and too slow. Companies don't want "more" employees, they want cheap employees. Well, "cheap" employees aren't really cheap. They are cheap for the company, but the government (American taxpayers) effectively subsidize this cheap labor for the corporations.

So how are a bunch of poor immigrants -- most without even high school educations -- going to help America? Answer: they won't. More poor immigrants will just push the current crop of poor Americans out of their jobs, drive down wages, drive up the amount of people on welfare, and increase the rate at which we go broke due to entitelment obligations.

[Grey]

Are you serious or is that satire?

There is no reason to believe market principles are any less relevant when it comes to flows of people as opposed to goods or capital.

[nicky g]

Economic studies generally find that immigrants provides a net economic benefit to the US, or that they are at worst a push in terms of costs and benefits. Eg here. Furthermore they allow for people from poorer countries to raise their own living standards as well as help their families at home. It is sad to see a supposed forum left-winger espousing an anti-immigrant platform.