talkpolitics | Entries tagged with congress

abomvubuso.livejournal.com

Ever since the very first year of president Obama's first term, when he managed to pass his biggest reform, the health-care reform, at the cost of a convoluted and deeply polarising process, one question has occupied the minds of both his critics and supporters. Did the 44th US president get a very unlucky hand of cards that couldn't possibly be played in a better way, or was Obama in fact unprepared for the task, and is he a confused and indecisive statesman who's only making the situation both at home and in the world more difficult to handle?

Syria is one fine example in that respect. Everyone is talking about Syria, so let's look at the situation there, Obama-wise. First the president made a public promise that he'd punish Assad's regime very harshly if he came across evidence of the use of chemical weapons; then he suddenly decided to share this decision with Congress. For his advocates, this means he has restored the constitutional right of Congress to decide upon the questions of war and peace, which many of his predecessors had ignored, this way strengthening American democracy in the long run, regardless of the short-term results. The camp of his critics is much larger and more diverse, their arguments varying from a deliberate undermining of the US image in the world to an escape from responsibility in a situation that to a great extent the president had put himself in on his own, due to his imprudence.

( Read more )

the-rukh.livejournal.com

This is my point of view. I'm not a political analyst, nor an Arab historian.

Unless you have been living in blissful glorious ignorance you might have noticed there's a thing going on in Syria. Part of the thing is multiple uses of Sarin gas during the year to murder Syrian rebels.
( Here be politics )
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what actually happened. It matters what the world ends up believing. Russia, and a few American Republicans have bet big on their hands. Its likely Obama has a pretty good hand himself though, and a lot of Western countries already think so. Ultimately what people will judge Obama's actions on is the political consequences, because that's what this about.

policraticus.livejournal.com

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

When we consider the US founding document, we spend a lot of time talking about the first, tasty, juicy section, where Jefferson lays out in elegant prose an expression of the American Mind, as he put it. And rightly so. We almost always elide the list of grievances, the lawyer's brief, the largest and arguably what was most important part for the signers themselves. But, rereading the Declaration today, 237 years on from its signing, I was struck by the very last line. What Congress, through Jefferson, was saying to George III was that the best proof of the document he had in his royal hands (received sometime in August!) was a mutual pledge by the Congress, of the very things inalienably granted each individual by their Creator: life, liberty and property, as asserted in the beginning of the Declaration. Our founders were willing to put it all on the line, to go "all in" against the most powerful nation on Earth at that time.

For what and with whom would you pledge your Life, your Fortune and your sacred Honor? Can you imagine our current Congress being so resolved? Thank God nothing of such consequence, requiring a pledge like this, faces us today.

Mood: thoughtful
Location: Six Miles At Sea
Music: Revolution, The Beatles.

telemann.livejournal.com

Comic Dave Chappelle's sketch on pleading the 5th before Congress is a classic, and it's a timely one too, because this week IRS official Lois Lerner (or as Colbert described her, Superman's former girlfriend) gave an opening statement to Congress, and refused to participate in the House investigation, and pleaded the fifth.

Personally, the only time I have ever seen someone plead the 5th was usually old footage of mobsters testifying before Congress (and duplicated in some of the Godfather movies), and usually the connotation always was "someone is obviously so guilty, who are they kidding, so that's the real reason they're going silent." And some of that was already kicking in when I initially saw Ms. Lerner's statement on the news, my heart sank and I thought "Wait, so what's she hiding!?"

We all hear a lot in the news and discussions about the really 3rd rail issues with the 1st and 2nd amendment, but the 5th certainly isn't considered a red button issue for many. And it's certainly not one a polarizing one. Yesterday on MSNBC The Spin Cycle's guest spot, Prof. James Duane from Regent University (a private conservative university / law school operated by Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach, Virginia) had a pretty interesting collequim on explaining what the 5th is, and how its one of the most misunderstood but in today's "over-criminalized" society, one of the most vitally important for a citizen because there are tens of thousands of statues and federal regulations that a person can break and not even know it.

Ms. Lerner's refusal to co-operate certainly raised the ire of Darryl Issa (the chairman of the House Committee, and a guy who knows the very important difference between acts of terror and terrorist attacks) believes that because Ms. Lerner gave an opening statement, she's lost her immunity to testify (i.e. plead the 5th). While Rep. Issa is a strong defender of the Bill of Rights and (every car owner to own one of his car alarms), he has no training in the law and apparently doesn't know how the 5th works, or Supreme Court decisions about what the 5th means for all of us.

Prof Duane explains all of this quite elegantly and isn't dry-as-toast-boring as you would expect any explanation of the law; and thought Ms. Lerner's example provided a great learning opportunity for most Americans. For my part, I learned that the 5th isn't limited to just criminal trials or Congressional hearings, but can be used at any level, even one on one with a police officer or any government official. And as Prof. Duane points out, seeing an official of the IRS invoke the 5th is richly ironic, considering the grief and fear they've caused ordinary citizens all the time. When conservative S.E. Cupp asked about a charge of perjury being brought against Ms. Lerner, Prof. Duane's answer may surprise you.

The video is behind this cut. And if it doesn't embed properly, click here for a direct link.

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Okay, I'm not American. So please be so kind to educate me. What's this fiscal cliff monster, news of which have trickled down even here to the ass of the world, and which everybody in America seems to be so worked up about? It's the new big story, now that the election is over.

I did some research (haha! Tbh, I did most of my learning from Jon Stewart - shoot me!), and what I could gather from all that, was the following. Feel free to interrupt me and correct me where I'm wrong.

( Read more... )

underlankers.livejournal.com

Another libertarian politician has left Congress and in the process has decided that democracy, or as he phrases it 'pure democracy' is now a bad thing. I suppose that if the government is not an oligarchy that a certain variety of libertarian must mistake the absence of a total monopoly on power on the part of the few over the many for living in the most horrendous despotism since that of Fransisco Solano Lopez. After all, if the rich are not entitled to do whatever it is that they would, that is the horrendous sacrifice of 'liberty' that costs a state truly and dearly, at least in the view of Senator Ron Paul. Alexander H. Stephens and Robert B. Rhett would have greatly approved of the concept that society is only truly free when the majority are subject to a minority and denied any chances to speak for themselves because the oligarchs know better than they do:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/ron-pauls-farewell-speech-congress-lays-bare-his-hatred-pure-democracy-and-love?paging=off

kayjayuu.livejournal.com

SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2012: Obama ahead of Romney in Iowa polls as vote starts

"There still is time to win, but we are in the fourth quarter," said Nick Ryan, a veteran Iowa Republican strategist...."

Still time to win? THIS IS SEPTEMBER. There have been no debates yet, but the media and the campaigns have been vetting this race for the last two years, if not before. If they didn't have politics to drive their news cycle, would they all talk about gardening?

I'm beginning to think that people in this game, whether politicians or news people or Madison Avenue -- those that have money to think about more than anything else -- are intentionally trying to drive the American people either mad or to drink. We already have Halloween stuff showing up in stores in July, and Christmas in September, so now we have to hear about polls for early voting over the next six weeks??

Forget public funding, forget Citizens United, forget it all -- I'm now officially for limiting media campaigning to ONE MONTH BEFORE any election. Talk to the people all you want -- all 700,000 of them in your district, for House races -- but no signs, no ads, no media analyzing votes and polls until it actually matters.

Please, please, tell me how it works in other countries. And how it came about, please? And that your population hasn't run over the cliff screaming "Ffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!"

ETA: It looks as if this is the ONE THING that the majority of TP denizens can agree on! And it all boils down to: "JUST STFU ALREADY!"

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

Sorry foreigners, this is about America. Feel free to kibitz!

Hello, to all of you ~~overweight, lazy, uniformed~~ fellow Americans!

We all know that Congress has an abysmal approval rating. I hear it's around 8%. Others say it might be as high as 12%. Either way, we all know that it's terrible. And the standard retort is:

"my congressman is great, the rest of them are idiots!"

But that got me thinking, do YOU actually like your congressman? This won't of course mean anything, statistically, but I'm curious. And just to keep it simple I'm going to stick to the house of representatives--the one that is supposed to represent the people's interest (as opposed to the senate, which was intended to represent the states interests)

I grew up in Anthony Weiner's district. I wasn't politically aware at that age, but I certainly would have approved of him, had I been paying attention.
Now of course, his seat is taken by a Mr. Bob Turner. Who I could not disagree with more. I mean, c'mon, his big claim to fame before being a congressman was working on the Jerry Springer show! Awful!

My current congressman is on his way out and the man who will replace him (he got the Dem nod and lives in a district that I bet repubs don't even bother contending) so I'm not too sure how I'll like the new guy, but the I do disapprove of my current Representative, even though he is a democrat. He's a long-time incumbent and is nothing more than a machine politician.

So that's my take on my reps.
What about you?

dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com

I remember when Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie" during President Obama's address to the entire Congress at the start of the health care debate (the same one in which he actually did lie several times, but not on the same subject that Wilson chose to make himself heard). I believe it was referred to in this community as "douchebaggery". Yes, that was it.

Anyway, during the House vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his role in Operation Fast & Furious, Nancy Pelosi encouraged members of Congress to walk out of the vote.

It's bad enough that (from 0:30-0:45) she trips over the name of the border agent who was murdered (as if BRIAN TERRY is so hard to pronounce), but then she goes on to misquote the U.S. Constitution while waxing poetic about responsibilities as members of Congress.

If Skeletor didn't like the result, she could have just voted NO and have been done with it. Instead, this contemptible hag encourages others to go the way of the Congressional Black Caucus (who apparently came up with this idea) and walk out of the hearing. As she pointed out, it's the first time a sitting cabinet member has been held in contempt.

Now some may point out that John Boehner did the same thing in 2011 - I won't argue against that. But that's business as usual in Congress. There are dirty tricks all around that happen during Congressional legislative sessions - like in 2008 when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats turned out the lights on GOP members while they kept working to solve the problem with high gas prices. Gee, that whole high gas price situation sounds familiar. On the other hand, a sitting member of the President's cabinet may be responsible for putting the gun that killed a U.S. border patrol agent in the hands of Mexican criminals? That is - as Joe Biden would call it - a "big f*cking deal".

So where is the outrage?

*crickets*

Mood: angry

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com

Last week the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23 to 17 (down party lines) to hold to hold US Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for attempting to Obstruct thier ivestigation into the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was killed by a rifle registered to the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

It has since been revealed that BATFE Agents along the Arizona/Mexico Border had been providing weapons to the Signolla Drug Cartel. I posted about the story when initially broke here.

Holder initially denied any knowledge of of the policy, and later defended it as simply the continuation of a Bush-era program called "Operation Wide Reciever". He has since withdrawn those statements. Holder has not yet been formally held in contempt of Congress. The full House still needs to approve the resolution in order for that to happen. But President Obama has elected to support Holder by asserting executive privilege over the documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee.

( This raises some interesting questions... )

Mood: quixotic

telemann.livejournal.com

It was a routine Senate vote. The Republican House had passed (330 - 93) a funding bill for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, one of the most mundane and routine things the government can do; and when Harry Reid wanted a fast vote to get to other important issues, Senate Republicans tried to delay the vote by putting several amendments up for a vote (a time delaying tactic since typically such amendments would never pass in the first place). Reid couldn't get the bill voted on without having a vote to end debate (i.e. "cloture"), which he couldn't do because it required 60 votes. He was clearly frustrated over how bogged down every vote has now become, and in an rather unusual move, he took to the Senate floor and apologized directly to Senators Udall and Merkley for not heeding their advice, and not supporting a rules change at restricting the use of the filibuster and cloture votes. Five days later after debates and speeches on the amendments (none were passed) the Senate passed the bill.

Poll after poll consistently shown American's displeasure at the gridlocked nature of the Senate (and these polls consistently put the blame at the GOP). Several political commentators have commented on how this grid lock is pretty new and historically significant. Ezra Klein recently pointed out that when in 1964 after the Democrats beat Barry Goldwater by huge margins both at the Presidential and Congressional levels, Lyndon Johnson was laying out strategy for passage of the Medicare Bill, an aide pointed out in an internal office memo, that as a result of the Democrat victory, it would pass by 55 to 45.

And of course, the overuse of the filibuster and cloture motion have been noted many times in the last few years. See this chart as an illustration of that point:

But some think Congress can't reform itself, and are instead seeking to have the Filibuster itself declared unconstitutional, and have filed with a brief with the Washington D.C., District Court which will no doubt end up before the Supreme Court.

Lest you think this is some political stunt by amateurs, reconsider that opinion. In an article for the Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation (btw the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession), Emmet Bondurant lays out a very compelling scholarly and well researched paper showing the Founders had no intention of a minority blocking legislation via the filibuster (and notes that a lot of the modern use started with Southern Senators to prevent integration of the U.S. military and Civil rights laws (most notable was South Carolina' Strom Thurmond).

As Erza Klein notes summaries from Mr. Bondurant's paper:

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a super-majority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”

I'm not sure if this legal challenge will work or not. There are some calls for Harry Reid to not wait until next January to push for the changes, and instead use the nuclear option to pass important judicial appointments (83 nominations that have not been voted on, and a record also), and I hope he will do it. It's long overdue. Paul Krugman has drawn attention to how poorly our Senate works, with an ominous reminder from Poland's history:

… with the rise of power held by Polish magnates, the unanimity principle was reinforced with the institution of the nobility’s right of liberum veto (Latin for “I freely forbid”). If the envoys were unable to reach a unanimous decision within six weeks (the time limit of a single session), deliberations were declared null and void. From the mid-17th century onward, any objection to a Sejm resolution — by either an envoy or a senator — automatically caused the rejection of other, previously approved resolutions. This was because all resolutions passed by a given session of the Sejm formed a whole resolution, and, as such, was published as the annual constitution of the Sejm, e.g., Anno Domini 1667. In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse.

Sources and Resources:
------------

[1.] Politico: "Frustrated Harry Reid: Reform the filibuster" by Manu Raju, 10 May 2012.

[2.] For Ezra Klein's historical background on the filibuster, you can watch this video here.

[3.] Washington Post: "Is the filibuster unconstitutional?" by Ezra Klein, 15 May 2012.

[4.] "The Senate becomes a Polish Joke," by Paul Krugman, 5 February 2010.

jerseycajun.livejournal.com

“It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.” - Lamar Smith (R-TX), sponsor of SOPA.

I'm glad to hear this, obviously as are most of us here who have been posting on, and discussing this over the last few weeks. But the end of the article raises the specter that it won't be too long before they come out with a replacement bill, and while I never put it past Congress' ability to repeatedly manhandle laws that require a more deft touch, it at least affords us the opportunity to discuss what people here think such a law tackling the same issues should look like, and how it should operate. Better yet, let us ask the question of what it is about the current law that is lacking, and the technical issues at play with the internet that you think makes the current law insufficient, if you think it is at all.

a-new-machine.livejournal.com

AKA Ink and Incapability[/jokes]

So, the Justice Department has proposed new rules governing Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. Right now, you can get three responses to your FOIA request: "Sorry, that doesn't exist;" "Yes, it exists, and here are your documents," and "we can neither confirm nor deny that these records exist." Now, that third one is called a Glomar response. It allows the records-holder some leeway in cases where answering straight would jeopardize national security, or if it exposes an ongoing criminal investigation or private data of some sort. Reasonable enough. The issue is that they wanted to do away with this Glomar response, and substitute outright lying for their non-answer.

( The proposed rule change... )

soliloquy76.livejournal.com

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is responsible for auditing the legislative branch of the US by finding waste, redundancy, and fraud within the government, is facing nearly $42 million in budget cuts in 2012. (That's 7.6% of its budget, and more than 10% of all budget cuts to the legislative branch. Compare this to the mere 3.17% in cuts to Senate personnel.) This is the same office that saved the US government $43 billion in 2009 and identified over $200 billion in savings in 2011, which many in Congress agreed to tackle but none of which were implemented. In addition, new rules are requiring the GAO to do a detailed cost analysis on its reports (a report on their report), even though it already accounts for its work. This would undoubtedly reduce its efficiency.

Senator Tom Coburn wrote a critical op-ed yesterday claiming that the GAO is being singled out when compared to the other cuts being made and has written a bipartisan letter to the bipartisan subcommittee heads responsible for these cuts. According to the op-ed, even the Appropriations committee responsible for the cuts admits that these cuts will hurt the GAO's ability to conduct oversight.

Some other highlights:

The cuts could cost taxpayers $3.3 billion next year due to waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency.
Congress had held 318 less oversight hearings this year compared to last year.
The GAO's workload increased 30% this year compared to last year

Why would Congress cut funds for a group that saves taxpayers billions of dollars each year? And why wouldn't Congress send any of the GAO's recommendations to the president to save us even more?

underlankers.livejournal.com

( cut for FLs )

___________________

So, may I gather from this that when Republicans speak of representing the people they do not in fact speak of all the people. Rather they associate people with that small minority with the free time and the wads of cash to spend to talk to them, as opposed to the entire group who might be interested. It certainly sends the message that Republicans do not know half their constituents half as well as they should like and like less than half of them half as well as they deserve. On the other hand, it's far from unusual these days for politicians to prefer to speak only to friendly audiences.

To speak only to an audience that already agrees with one's own views helps explain why our Congress is deadlocked and unable to do the most basic tasks. For in speaking only to audiences that already agree with them, they are congenitally incapable of accepting or realizing that when others disagree the proper response is not to demand one's own view seventy-sevenfold or be damned but to compromise seventy-times seven to thus save democracy.

On the other hand this is the guy whose idea of a budget that cut things was actually larger than the President's......

rick-day.livejournal.com

Some fiery shit right here. Shuts them other suits right up proper.

Questions for the group: Is he right regarding Obama's (and ours, collectively) only hope of turning this around? Is Congressional election system so money corrupt that we, the people, must literally fire them from their jobs?

Does anyone know anything about his references to previous presidents bypassing Congress LIKE A BOSS and going to the people, even at the risk of alienating his own party (even more than he has)?

And what about this new bank idea of his, loaning business capital @ 2%? Which side claims that idea?

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: Folks, checks and balances are not the issue here. Not is the abolition of Congress and establishing Executive dictatorships. That is silly talk.

The issue is the speaker in the video suggests the POTUS, who is free to speak directly to the people, should rally the people against the Congress incumbency.

Some think he has to have Congressional oversight to do so. Er, no. He is not passing laws here, folks.

What the gentleman in the video is suggesting is that Obama talk directly to the people as our LEADER, to point the blame at the entire congress, including his party (80% of the country agree). He has the bully pulpit.

The purpose of the bully pulpit being to rally the people to purge Congress of incumbents, replace them with 'clean' legislators (read clarifications in my comments to those below who misinterpreted the intent), who will pledge to work in a non-partisan manner to get the country back on track (whatever that is; another post for another time)

Mood: bouncy

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

What are the odds that the Democrats and Republicans will turn out so insanely crazy as to plunge the world into another financial chaos*, this time generated in the US Congress rather than Wall Street? Wanna bet against me? There is just a day and a few hours remaining after all, and I'm betting on a "sudden" change of mind and a "glorious" compromise and - oh, surprise! - a deal being reached.

Wanna play?

* why I'm saying this. Not to sound overly sensationalist and apocalyptic, nah. But most analyses indicate that a US default would trigger a domino effect which would ultimately bring a crisis on the markets that would make the 2008/2010 crisis look like a minor kindergarten squabble, which is making some people quite nervous around the world. Just when you thought the US is no more able to send further ripples across the global lake...

(This post may need some update later. Tomorrow maybe. I have no intention to watch the grass grow on CSPAN).

[edit] So here's the update. Surprise-surprise! (Not!) Obama caved in and got the deal the GOP offered. Wow, I'm so shocked! Aren't you? ;)

telemann.livejournal.com

In an afternoon press conference that ended just minutes ago, President Obama blasted the House Republicans for failure to compromise on any tax increases, after his willingness to cut nearly 4 trillion dollars in a debt/deficit reduction plan, including significant changes to both Social Security and Medicare. President Obama noted "I am prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done," Obama said, contending he has "bent over backward to work with Republicans." And asked them, "Where are the jobs?" turning their mantra back on them. The President said he would refuse to sign any 30, 60, or 90 day extensions for the debt ceiling, saying it will become harder to reach a solution as the nation moves closer to an election cycle, and Congressional candidates will be more focused on winning their seats than doing what's right for the country. "It's time to pull off the bandaid; eat our peas." The proposed plan worked on over the weekend included nearly 4 trillion in cuts, with 1/4 of the overall plan including raising revenues by removing tax loopholes, simplifying the tax code and making it more flat, and raising some taxes on the highest income brackets (back to where they had been during the Clinton years).

( Highlights of the press conference )

telemann.livejournal.com

In one of Carl Sagan's last interviews on May 27, 1996, Charlie Rose asked Dr. Sagan's opinion about a frightening scientific survey with the results published in the New York Times, which showed Americans lack of knowledge regarding the most fundamental scientific facts: e.g. the worst showing came when those surveyed were asked to define scientific terms. Only about 9 percent knew what a molecule was, and only 21 percent could define D.N.A., the genetic material. But even more fundamental questions stumped many: less than half knew that the Earth orbits the Sun annually. [lol whut!?] Nevertheless, there is enthusiasm for research, except in some fields like genetic engineering and nuclear power that are viewed with suspicion.

( More behind the cut )

malasadas.livejournal.com

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) will resign his seat in Congress.

I'm of two minds on this: there are worse sexual offenders in the current Congress who have survived and continue to serve with the support of their party. I'd have been fine with him getting an official reprimand from the House...with the caveat that if he really did knowingly have sexual exchanges with underaged girls, he should have faced expulsion.

But Weiner's denials for the better part of a week undermined him more than anything. And the continued roll out of more and more personally offensive behavior instead of a straight up confession in the face of inevitable revelations sunk him more than anything else.

It raises a larger point: what personal behavioral standard SHOULD there be for Congresscritters and what level of privacy for personal "quirks" such as a penchant for sexting should exist?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with congress

Dances with Tomahawks

Political viewpoint on Syrian punishment

Revolting.

I plead the Fif! I plead the Fif!

Fiscal cliff - what the hell is that animal?

Ah, Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish:

Stop this madness, for the love of all that's good and holy

Congressional Approval

Members of House Walk Out of Holder Contempt Vote

Contempt Vote Tomorrow

Filibuster reform, finally?

SOPA dead. For now.

Governing the Government: Agencies and Accountability - Sense and Sensibility

Breaking News: Congress is broken

Vox Populi, Bah Humbug. Vox Pecuniae, Bene Bene:

Is bypassing Congress gridlock and appealing directly to the people the only hope Obama has?

Wanna bet against me?

Obama: "It's time to pull off the bandaid; eat our peas."

Science month : American adults flunk basic science

Breaking News: You won't have Anthony Weiner to kick around anymore

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary