Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (212783)	12/26/2001 8:17:06 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Perhaps the most hilarious example of party-line whiplash concerns the economic stimulus package that didn't pass this week. Specifically the question of whether a stimulus is really needed. In the negotiations, both sides tried to blame the other for failing to make a deal on this vital legislation, while at the same time trying to increase their own leverage by declaring their own willingness to walk away. The Journal has faithfully taken both positions. "The economy will be better off if President Bush calls the whole thing off," it argued in an editorial on the stimulus bill. In its Daschle editorial, the Journal mused, "All this adds to the suspicion that Mr. Daschle is only too happy to see no stimulus bill at all." In other words, the Journal's editors accuse Daschle of obstructing a bill that they themselves have urged Bush to obstruct. It's not surprising, of course, that conservative journalists would tend to agree with the Republican Party on matters of policy, just as liberals tend to agree with the Democratic Party on matters of policy. The difference comes in the day-to-day squabbling between the parties over political procedure—the merits of recess appointments or the desirability of bipartisanship and so on. Some commentators take principled positions on such issues. The Washington Post editorial page, for instance, believes the federal judiciary has too many vacancies. Last year it condemned Senate Republicans for delaying President Clinton's nominees, and this year it condemned Senate Democrats for condemning President Bush's nominees. The parties, on the other hand, treat these questions as matters of pure expediency. Last year, Democrats complained that the judiciary was strapped for judges, while Republicans claimed it was well-stocked. This year, they've switched sides. When party flaks peddle their line of the day, nobody expects of them anything but intellectual hypocrisy. Indeed, judging by the smirks on their faces, the flaks themselves often don't take their own lines very seriously.

To: E. T. who wrote (212783)	12/26/2001 9:14:47 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

You can't "demonize" with the truth. JLA

To: E. T. who wrote (212783)	12/26/2001 9:40:40 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769670

Apparently you are a Canadian Socialist and admire your Dem comrades but you understand little about the US. You cited a very poor article. Factually wrong. Chait is a very stupid partisan. If you read the WSJ article you would understand the huge difference. Clinton violated the Vacancies act by installing people the Dems knew would lose in the Senate and didn't want to allow to have a vote on as "acting" officials. That was something no president has done before as far as I can tell - clearly an end run around that fact that recess appointments are time limited. The WSJ has not asked Bush to break the law like Clinton did. The WSJ is calling on Bush to appoint people who the Dems refuse to allow a vote on because the people would win. But nothing illustrates the Daschle Senate better than the treatment of Eugene Scalia, President Bush's pick to be the Labor Department's top lawyer. Back when a Republican-controlled Senate found itself at odds with then-President Clinton over the appointment of Bill Lann Lee as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mr. Lee was given a hearing. And it was Democrats who fought sending his name to the floor for a vote -- because they knew he would lose. President Clinton then responded not with a regular recess appointment that would expire at the end of that Congress. Instead he named Mr. Lee Acting Assistant Attorney General, in clear violation of the Vacancies Act and something that even Mr. Clinton noted was not "entirely constitutional." In sharp contrast, Mr. Scalia would win a floor vote. He is being held up by Senator Ted Kennedy for what everyone knows is payback for the role his father, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, played in the Bush v. Gore recount case. Mr. Scalia was reported favorably out of the Senate Labor Committee in early October. But Mr. Daschle has prevented it from moving to the floor for a vote, telling ABC News he didn't think "the votes are there." The good thing about Daschle's extreme partisanship is that Americans, who already credited Clinton with the Clinton recession - now that Daschle has refused to allow the the majority to pass the stimulus bill - has officially made it the Clinton-Daschle Recession.