« “NONPARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE TO APPEAR AT DFL FUNDRAISER | Home | DAYTON REVISITS HIS GRADING »
HOUSE DEMOCRATS BREAK MAJOR CAMPAIGN PROMISE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | January 4, 2007
"WASHINGTON – As the new Democratic Congress prepared to be sworn in today and to elect Nancy Pelosi of California the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, partisan gamesmanship threatened to override pledges of a new era of bipartisan cooperation.
House Democrats said Wednesday that they'd break one of their major promises: granting Republicans the kind of full participation in the legislative process that they were denied while Republicans held power the last 12 years." Source: Star Tribune, January 7, 2007
Click here for complete story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 20 Comments »
20 Responses to “HOUSE DEMOCRATS BREAK MAJOR CAMPAIGN PROMISE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Republicans did that for 12 years…
The Republians are getting what they deserved. Why in any way shape or form should the Democrats even allow the Republicans a voice in the House?
Get over it, move on.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Does this come as a shock to anyone?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:14 PM
San Soucri, When you say your going to do something and then don’t do it, that makes you a LIAR ! It doesn’t matter if your a Republican or
a Democrat !
January 4th, 2007 at 12:18 PM
San, you might be right.
However, the very very big difference is that these guys said otherwise very recently. That is the story here.
All they needed to do is be honest about it. But obviously that ain’t gonna happen.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Ramsey finally speaking some sense here
January 4th, 2007 at 1:29 PM
The Republicans governed like Democrats over the past decade. The Dems should be happy.
Hey, I see St Paul passed a “living wage” ordience. God, the guy who runs Sioux City economic development must be a campaign contributor to St Paul DFLers. Or maybe Eagan and Savage promoters pushed to get Coleman and his people in charge.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:50 PM
This is actually the second major campaign promise the broke already. They’ve already announced they won’t be enacting the changes to Congressional policies and oversights laid out in the 9-11 commission report and promising to enact every single change suggested.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I hear another commercial from Dan Scott coming on…
January 4th, 2007 at 3:19 PM
This is politics most of you seem naive to that fact.
Politicians lie, it is what they do. Get over that fact and move on, there is no need to dwell on it.
President Bush said he would be uniter not a diveder, did that happen? No. Do you seem me complaing? No.
And there is no need for the Democrats to allow the Republicans any voice in the House. You reap what you sew.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Plus, when you say you are going to do something and not do it does not make you a liar. It makes you unreliable.
To lie is to say you did something when you really did not.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:16 PM
San, It was the Democrats who divided.
The ink was still wet on the education bill that Bush and Ted Kennedy worked on before Kennedy got heat from the education Nazi’s and started bashing Bush over the bill he helped create.
The Democrats after yers of claiming Saddam was a threat and how he was producing WMD’s turned around and then claimed Bush lied about WMD
You can read the Democrats comments here
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Or you can watch the video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfeBROshZ0M
So San, have any excuses for the Democrats divisive behavior?
January 4th, 2007 at 4:52 PM
This is really something that has been indicative from the left ever since they won in 2006. Perhaps they don’t recall how much they argued that the minority had the responsibility to keep the majority in check and make sure that as little as possible could get accomplished. That was when the GOP owned both chambers of the Congress by significant margins and the White House. Right now the Democrats hold the House by a marginal tally and they are a health problem from Robert Byrd away from being the minority again in the Senate again. They obviously still are not in the White House. But yet, to the left it would seem that suddenly their newfound majority status gives them free reign and power that they would never ever concede to the Republicans when they were holding majorities.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:04 PM
How can you even say that it is the Democrats fault?
They have not been in power for 6 years. It is the resposibility of those in power, if they want unity, to actively pursue it. The Republicans did no such thing.
-President Bush felt it was his God given right to push every policy through Congress without consulting the Democrats.
-It was Tom Delay who chopped up Texas in an effort to push Democrats out of their Districts.
-It was the K-Street project, where Republicans forced lobbying shops to hire Republican staffers.
-The Republicans wanted to get rid of the fillabuster. A tool established to protect the minority right in the Senate by the Framers.
***Piss and moan about the judges, please do…
Now, I have nothing wrong with what they did. They got what they deserved in the end. But to claim that it is all Democrats fault for the division in this country is moronic.
Were you born last week? Fell, hit your head forgot about the last 6 years?
Unity does not mean one party welds power and influence over another, it means to come together. I have no qualms with the Democrats doing the exact same things to Republicans as was done to them…it is the Golden Rule.
Have no excuses for their behavior, they were playing partisan politics, just like the Republicans did.
President Bush has only now, after losing Congress, been willing to talk with the Democrats.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:40 PM
San Stupid… it’s the Dems fault because they said one thing and did another.
BTW — did the Republicans really do any of this procedural stuff? Seems the first I heard of this issue was Dems saying it in defense of their behavior. Maybe I was sleeping though.
Otherwise, let me rebut a few of San Stupid’s funnier points:
//-President Bush felt it was his God given right to push every policy through Congress without consulting the Democrats.//
Huh? No, not God given… given by the voters who elected him… and he worked with the leaders of Congress (Dems and Reps) to get his legislative recommendations passed.
//It was Tom Delay who chopped up Texas in an effort to push Democrats out of their Districts.//
Truth is, Delay reversed the chopping of the state that Democrats did when they were in power there. Don’t revise history Stupid.
//It was the K-Street project, where Republicans forced lobbying shops to hire Republican staffers.//
Huh? You sniffing bad coke? Or just getting your facts wrong?… or just paraphrasing Kos?
//The Republicans wanted to get rid of the fillabuster. A tool established to protect the minority right in the Senate by the Framers.//
That’s completely false. Republicans wanted to end fillibusters of judicial nominees, in the judicial committee only. Get your facts straight. Also, realize that Democrats were in the wrong for doing it in the first place.
//I have no qualms with the Democrats doing the exact same things to Republicans as was done to them…it is the Golden Rule.//
First, I don’t believe that the Republicans “did the same thing”… Second, that’s not the Golden Rule you dumbshit. The Golden Rule is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
You’re actually advocating eye-for-an-eye revenge.
San Stupid, you quickly rose to be the most ignorant, ridiculous liberal poster on this site.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:05 PM
San – you wrote: “You reap what you sew.” The saying is: “You reap what you sow.” Unless you mean’t “You rip what you sew.” In any case your liberal intellect is showing.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Do you even know where Washington DC is?
The K-Street project is the major reason the Democrats are trying to pass ethics re-forms.
Please at least try to be informed when you post here. Fucking Morons. Do you even read the news, pass by The Drudge Report ever.
Second – Majority rule always uses procedural moves to keep the minority from enacting changes to legislation. And yes the Republicans were doing this. Where the hell do you think the Demoracts got the idea to not involve the Republicans in new legislation.
Forth – Ending the fillibuster in an scenerio is encroachment on the minority right. Sorry, big word for you.
-Though being reasonable, as smart people are, I will say the minoirty was trying to force its rule on the majority. Which is reason why they thought the Nuclear Option should have been put in place.
Third – Clever insult on my screen name…Where did you go to college St.Cloud State?
Do you understand logic what so ever?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.†This is a refernce to how Republicans have conducted themselves in the past and how they are now being treated the same way they treated Democrats. Again you need to jump off a bridge.
Forth – Not liberal. Wow way to make generalizations.
Fifth – Sorry Jon Carey for the mis-spell. I mean you with such an orginal screen name and all you should be one to judge everyone.
Both of your mothers should have been handed coat hangers the second they left the trailer park. Come back when you know a thing or two about politics.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Are you a retard Kyle . Have downs syndrome?
Delay chopped up Texax in 2002. Which is why the case went to the Supreme Court. You know what that is right?
He re-drew the lines in an unconstitutional manner. Districts are re-drawn ever 10 years to follow the census. It was done in 2000 and then 2002.
Why do you think there were a Supreme Court case about, because he fucking broke the law.
You are right about the Democrats drawing them up previously, there is nothing wrong with that. But they did it in accordance with the law.
Again, you are a moron and need to come back when you know what is actually going on in this country.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:59 PM
San, you have an incredible lack of facility with facts… and the English language. Yikes.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:01 PM
… you wouldn’t happen to be typing from a cave on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, would you?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:30 PM
… the case may have gone to the Supreme Court, but it was upheld. SCOTUS determined that no law had been broken, and that the new Texas districts (except for 1) were constitutional.
San, please… try to know at least a little bit about what the hell you’re talking about before commenting. Just a smidgen.