posted on May 16, 2007 02:11:20 PM
PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET
After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.
The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.
In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.
Developing...
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on May 16, 2007 02:39:23 PM
Republicans Claim Victory in Rules Fight
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 16, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Republicans claimed victory Wednesday in a flash-pan fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over 185-year-old House rules that allow the minority party to block legislation.
Reports Thursday afternoon suggested that Pelosi would alter the "rules to commit," which allow the minority party to send legislation back to committee before the full House is allowed to vote on it. Reports suggested Pelosi was frustrated about the Republicans' ability to block Democratic legislation.
But Chief Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia wrote on his blog Thursday that "House Democrats just blinked" after Republican stalling efforts brought floor progress to a halt.
"House Democrats wanted to change the rules to make it easier to raise taxes," Cantor wrote. "They wanted to change rules on minority floor rights that have been in place since 1822. They failed."
Cantor praised Republicans whom he said had "stood united and successfully fought against the House Democrats' ill-advised rule changes, by reducing all business on the House floor to a crawl."
He said the Republicans' efforts ended in a victory for the American people.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on May 16, 2007 03:53:57 PM
Glad to hear they weren't successful.
They're just chomping at the bit to raise our taxes. Spend even more...then raise them even higher.
pelosi will now understand the total frustration that the republicans felt as they blocked/obstructed bill after bill. And wounldn't even come to the table to DISCUSS compromise positions.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
May 16 07:09 PM US/Eastern
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted Wednesday to advance legislation cutting off money for the Iraq war, then refused to pledge to support the measure if it came to a vote, then said she would.
sounds like exactly what kerry did during his whole campaign
At lunchtime, the New York senator and presidential candidate was asked repeatedly by reporters whether she favored the troop withdrawal legislation that had just come up for a procedural vote on the Senate floor.
Her answer: "I'm not going to speculate on what I'm going to be voting on in the future. I voted in favor of cloture to have a debate."
By supper time, she had a different answer.
"I support the underlying bill," she said. "That's what this vote on cloture was all about."
A rival Democratic camp quickly criticized Clinton's evolving—and possibly revolving—statements.
"We're as confused as anyone on Senator Clinton's position," said Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd's campaign spokeswoman, Christy Setzer.
"Frankly, it's hard to know whether it's indecision, miscommunication or simple word games and political gamesmanship we're dealing with. Our troops in Iraq don't have time for poll-tested word games," Setzer said.
Clinton sided with 28 other senators who lost a procedural vote on the measure offered by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. The amendment would have cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.
Clinton long has resisted calls from those within her own party to impose a specific deadline on troop withdrawal in Iraq, a position that has at times resulted in her being booed by anti-war activists.
At the noontime news conference, Clinton insisted she had not changed her position on a specific withdrawal date.
"This is consistent with what I've been saying for several years," she said.
Even as she denied there were any mixed signals in her votes and statements on a troop withdrawal, she criticized what she called growing confusion caused by President Bush's Iraq policy, including the appointment this week of a "war czar."
Clinton said she wants her vote to send a message to Iraqi leaders that they have to do more to stabilize their country before the United States will commit to a longer troop presence there.
___
Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this report.
• Clinton Won't Commit on Iraq Deadline
45 minutes ago (AP)
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 17, 2007 10:50:37 AM
It's just like mingopig and the rest of the Demomorons to change the subject when they are losing. At least this time, mingopig kept it in a thread where the subject is just that.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
Are YOU a Bunghole?