Then why do you get upset when they get called on it?

Post #278,679 by Another Scott 3/18/07 11:23:16 AM Reply	Then why do you get upset when they get called on it?
Post #278,682 by bepatient 3/18/07 11:27:45 AM Reply	Huh? Who's upset? What they did was legal but it creates a scandal that takes time away from real news and will take time away from real governing. While the House and Senate spend millions investigating this they could be passing healthcare legislation, discussing lowering debt, passing REAL resolutions about the war..etc. But no...its Bush and ROVE....ROVE OF ALL PEOPLE...THE ANTICHRIST HIMSELF. When we're done having hearings about Plame (last years news)...we'll start with this...and get no governing done at all. Upset? Not at all. Pessimists are NEVER disappointed. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,687 by Seamus 3/18/07 11:38:31 AM Reply	real governing If the result of this scandal is that we spend more time talking about one thing that congress should do - spend more time reading and understanding the legislation they pass - and talking about the importance of keeping politics out of the prosecution of our laws, would you consider that a waste of time? Seamus
Post #278,689 by bepatient 3/18/07 11:41:47 AM Reply	Pessimist, remember? They won't discuss that at all. They'll lay blame at the feet of Gonzales, force him to be replaced...have the press say that it was really Rove and that Gonzales took the fall for him...and then they'll find a new scandal to have hearings on. Not one mention of their complicity by passing stupid laws will be heard. Ever. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,702 by Seamus 3/18/07 1:07:52 PM Reply	What kind of pessimist? A complete and total pessimist? When it comes to politicians, I believe the only thing that affects their behavior is if they believe there will be negative consequences to their actions. Seamus
Post #278,703 by bepatient 3/18/07 1:11:57 PM Reply	Like what? The kind that gets them kicked out of politics and then signed to other organizations or speaking tours that net them 5 to 10 times their earnings as politicians? Wish I could face that kind of "punishment". Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,690 by Another Scott 3/18/07 11:52:32 AM 3/21/07 12:23:42 AM Reply	Wouldn't be surprised if that provision was added in conf. It's quite common, or was under the Republicans, for provisions to be added to bills in the [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Conference_committee\|Conference Committee] that resolves difference between House and Senate bills. The members of that committee are appointed by the leadership and they have a lot of leeway in adding things - things that aren't even in either version of the bills. As such, it wouldn't surprise me if it was added there - where most of the congressmen and senators wouldn't have seen it. That's one reason why the leadership is so important even if they don't have a large enough majority to push through their agenda directly. They still have a big impact on shaping the legislation, and it's a big part of the reason why the Republicans were able to change so many things even though their majority was small. I haven't taken the time to investigate the history of this particular bill, so I could be wrong. But in any event, I wouldn't expect that the people voting on the bills will read them more closely as a result of this. I would hope that they would encourage their staffs to watch the legislation more carefully and alert them when things like this appear. [edit:] I've looked at the legislation some more. The language in question [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109SaeWhQ:e177847:\|Section 502] in the final bill is not present in the [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109SaeWhQ::\|House version] (where there is no Title V section at all), nor in the [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109SaeWhQ::\|Senate version]. It seems clear the language for all of the Title V provisions, including Section 502, were added in the Conference Committee. It's really not surprising that few knew what was in the bill when it came up for the final passage vote. I've seen mention of the name of someone who pushed for the 502 provision, but haven't seen anything official in my scanning of Thomas at the Library of Congress site. Note that if these links don't work for you (due to my search timing out), a search for "HR 3199" for the 109th Congress [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html\|here] will give the various versions of the bill. H.R.3199.ENR is the final version (you may need to search for it separately). Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott March 21, 2007, 12:23:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #278,988 by drewk 3/21/07 12:40:12 AM Reply	Wow, you're a genius! Or maybe you're just reasonably intelligent, and have seen this pattern so often that it's beyond "unsurprising" right into the "expected" category. Well, I guess you could still be a genius. But predicting this probably doesn't count as evidence. It was fairly obvious, after all. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,989 by Another Scott 3/21/07 12:43:56 AM Reply	You can call me "Mr. Obvious" if you'd like.
Post #279,001 by Silverlock 3/21/07 6:12:38 AM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #279000 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=279000\|ICLRPD] ----------------------------------------- Draft Clark [link\|http://draftwesleyclark.com/\|now].

Welcome to IWETHEY!