Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn fairness to Harry Reid, no Senate majority leader has ever before begun a new session of Congress with four open seats and a slowly settling contest for a fifth seat.
But Reid really has to do better when it comes to leading the chamber.
On a day when Democrats should have been celebrating their largest Senate majority in decades and setting their agenda for responding to the economic and foreign-policy challenges created by eight years of Republican rule, they were instead talking about refusing to seat an appointee from Illinois and preparing to seat a recount winner from Minnesota.
Reid has lost control of the narrative.
He may be the leader of a significant Senate majority, but Reid does not appear to be setting the agenda on Capitol Hill.
Rather, the focus on the first day of the new Senate was on former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, who was claiming to be his state's junior senator but who was not seated as such.
Reid is standing on relatively solid Constitutional ground. The Senate has broad authority to define qualifications for membership in the body.
And Reid's fans argue that the majority leader has been consistent. After all, he had said that the Senate would not seat an appointee of scandal-plagued Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of President-elect Barack Obama.
But none of this erases the reality that the Burris circus was a mess.
Even if Reid is right to deny the appointee his place -- claiming that Burris arrived with "incomplete paperwork" -- the majority leader failed to manage things in a smart or effective manner.
A legislative leader must anticipate controversies, particularly those controversies that might steal attention from his or her political and policy priorities.
Reid should have met with Burris before Tuesday and tried to reach an agreement with the Illinoisan -- perhaps a plan to seat Burris now, on the understanding that he would step down when and if Blagojevich is removed from office.
Ultimately, that may be how things are sorted out.
But the damage of Day One has been done.
Let's hope that Reid does better on Day Two -- when Senate leaders are set to meet with Burris -- and that the majority leader will do a better job of managing the complicated process of seating Minnesota Senator-elect Al Franken.
In almost every sense, the Franken circumstance is an easier one to address.
Despite the griping and growling of ousted Senator Norm Coleman, Franken has been certified as the winner of the Minnesota contest. And he should, after a review of complaints by Coleman, be able to present a valid certificate of election.
That should happen within a week, although it is possible that Reid will be forced to make a judgment call on when to seat Franken -- perhaps over objections from Senate Republicans.
Next, Reid can get around to the business of seating variously controversial replacements for Delaware Senator (and Vice President-elect) Joe Biden, New York Senator (and Secretary of State nominee) Hillary Clinton, and Colorado Senator (and Secretary of the Interior nominee) Ken Salazar.
Then, maybe, Harry Reid can get someone to listen to what he has to say about enacting a stimulus package, repairing America's international reputation and renewing the system of checks and balances -- under which the Congress is supposed to be a co-equal, and presumably functional, branch of the federal government.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
i don't know. i mean...as you said, CHRIS, its an interesting situation in which harry finds himelf floundering.
personally i think burris sounds like a decent enough fellow. perhaps harry should should flipflop on this and pick a better fight.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2009 @ 5:41pm
oops - nichols...not chris...brainfart...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2009 @ 5:42pm
Hey Ibble, happy new year!
Isn't it nice to see that Senator Harry Reid is living up to his full potential?
Posted by ACook at 01/06/2009 @ 5:58pm
I must admit I have not been very impressed with Pelosi or Reid for that matter, they seem to have no backbone for doing the right thing. Both have been wishy washy and have not shown strong leadership.
Posted by Caj at 01/06/2009 @ 6:07pm
The article's claim that "the Senate has broad authority to define qualifications for membership in the body," is simply untrue. Powell v. McCormack strictly limits Congress to judging whether members comply with the qualifications already stated in the Constitution, namely age, residency, and citizenship. In addition, they can verify that the person was in fact elected, or in fact appointed. That's it. Not one thing more. They cannot add any other criterion or qualification for membership, whatsoever. In the Burris case, the issues are (1) is he eligible, and (2) was he appointed. Yes, he is, and yes, he was. Anything else is spin.
Posted by TKD at 01/06/2009 @ 6:08pm
And who cares about our int'l reputation?Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 6:15pm
Then we wonder why we never get support in places like Iraq.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 6:59pm
"And who cares about our int'l reputation?"
Well, for starters, the families and friends of about 4,138 US soldiers.
Posted by onthehelm at 01/06/2009 @ 7:46pm
It's been abundantly clear for a long time now that both Reid and Pelosi have provided very poor leadership in their respective houses of Congress. Watching them in action is not terribly unlike being a Detroit Lions football fan over the past season.
Since John Nichols is a veteran hand in matters concerning the legislature, I'd love to see an analysis piece regarding the mechanics of how we ended up with these bumbling bozos, who primarily pulls their strings, and what are the prospects that the Dems replace them with more principled leadership.
As poor a performance as the Dems have given us over the Bush years in particular, I'd wager that if Obama is to have a reasonable chance of something resembling success as our new POTUS he will need a much better performing legislative branch.
How about it Nation mag? Can we put a spotlight on these bumblers?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2009 @ 7:47pm
i called Patty Murray's office today. Urge YOUR Senator to support a vote of no confidence in Harry Reid. Urge the Senate to elect a new majority leader. these tumultuous times demand a leader; Reid, for one, is clearly not.
Posted by calandra_speaksout at 01/06/2009 @ 7:55pm
hey TKD - what gives the supreme court the right to tell congress how to do its business?
Posted by urmygyro at 01/06/2009 @ 8:21pm
LL wrote: "1st of all, America's foreign reputation is of no constitutional concern to Sen Reid. That is the responsibility of the Executive Branch."
Right, LL, right.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/06/2009 @ 8:25pm
Seriously...
What is Harry Reid doing as the SML? Why is Pelosi still 3rd in line for succession to the Presidency?
I think the Dems did a pretty good job of proving that they lack guts, spine, and moxie to stop an unpopular President with a mandate in hand and public opinion on their side.
Now they are going to prove that they can not only do all of that, but they can also fail to install an effective government with their own President at the helm.
Unreal. I've been telling everybody who can read that the Democrats are NOT the answer to the basic problem. They are PART of it. The basic problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become controlled the two major parties and they continue to act in their own interests, not the PEOPLE'S interests. That's why every time I see a story like this I point it out AGAIN.
The problem is that we have TWO PARTIES calling the shots and they have learned to expect you to vote for THE LESSOR OF TWO EVILS. As soon as you stop doing that, as soon as you take back control, all of this will fix itself.
It's quite simple, all you have to do is DO IT.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 01/06/2009 @ 8:36pm
Harry Reid is a RACIST, RACIST, RACIST! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ALL INVOLVED are DEMOCRATS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Have we not overcome the days when blacks were shut out of schools, the front of the bus, and now the SENATE, by evil,racist WHITEY! How dare Harry Reid revert to the good ol' days when other Dem's like Robert " KKK " Byrd ( The "second love" of Nancy Pelosi's life ), who fought civil rights legislation put forward by those evil Republicans, were plotting the destruction of the black community while serving as a grandmaster of the KKK!!!!!!!!! Some things never change, and you MORONS keep voting for these lowlife oxygen-thieves!!!!!! LOL!
Posted by barry25 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:19pm
"the Democrats are NOT the answer to the basic problem. They are PART of it. The basic problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become controlled the two major parties and they continue to act in their own interests, not the PEOPLE'S interests."
Posted by WWWexler at 01/06/2009 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well...we ALL are part of the problem to some extent, and i'm not so sure a third or fourth party would be as effective as you think.
it would take some major changes in our method of electing folks for any viable third party to have a chance.
furthermore i'm not so sure our cultural dynamics are friendly to more than two major parties.
perhaps it would be wiser for those who do not like the two established parties to infiltrate the major parties and form blocs from within - the "green democrats" or "libertarian republicans" within the two, for example...
but i'm not so sure things would be that much better in a multi-party system than they are now. human nature is what it is and any real democracy is shackled and ennobled by this.
i also harbor doubts as to whether the legions of casual naysayers and non participators would really devote enough energy, time, and money to such a cause to make it work.
but perhaps i'm wrong. prove me wrong - i'd love it.
regardless, if you want major, long term change...you have to think in the long term, be patient, and actually DO something.
unfortunately in my experience most who talk like you (no offense - i have also) do nothing but talk.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2009 @ 9:19pm
Oh, how much fun it's gonna' be to watch the Dem's show their true colors in the next four years! LOL! I get sooooo much enjoyment laughing at you libs and pointing out your childish beliefs, behaviors and existence!!!!! LOL!
Posted by barry25 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:22pm
Posted by ACook at 01/06/2009 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hey annie - happy new year.
what i'm wondering is whether the pelosi/ried axis will end up helping obama with his initiatives or hurt...
vic
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2009 @ 9:23pm
Id say the democrats and Harry are having a typical day...this is just the begining...
How about Pelosi shuting down any and all opposition with her "new" rules? Stalin would be proud...and the "free press" follows along in silent approval...
Going to be a rough ride for a while..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 9:31pm
How about Pelosi shuting down any and all opposition with her "new" rules? Stalin would be proud...and the "free press" follows along in silent approval... Going to be a rough ride for a while.. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 9:31pm
As opposed to George Bush vetoing everything that isn't in his agenda or letting it sit on his desk until the time runs out? While I don't agree with what Pelosi did, don't even begin to attempt to paint this as a solely Democrat tactic. Republicans and Democrats have played dirty like this for YEARS. It's just that Pelosi had the balls to at least be overt about it instead of using the last 8 years of Republican methods of using a large enough majority and a President in office to just block any sort of opposition or legislation from Democrats.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:40pm
Anyone heard of the "Fairnes Doctrine"? I find it comical that Pelosi and the other Anti-free speech liberals want to apply it ONLY to that worldwide media juggernaut...AM radio! No mention of applying the so-called "fairness doctrine" to those churches of liberalism, the MSM, Academia, Hollywood, print media etc. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder why they're only going after such a small media out let? Can any of you brainiacs tell me what could possibly be the reason the left thinks all these other outlets of propaganda should not be included in the so-called "fairness doctrine"? Could this be a tiny bit SELF-SERVING ond overtly HYPOCRITICAL? None of you pussies will touch this one cause I got ya' CORNERED once again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
Posted by barry25 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:48pm
Reid losing control of a narrative? Talk about dog bites man.
But in his defense, what can you do about the Blago situation? It would be nice if Howard Dean or his Illinois equivalent could whisper in the governor's ear the way George H.W. Bush supposedly did with Nixon and say, Look, it's over, you've gotta go. But, no, the governor is sticking to his legal position and his lawyers, and we libs believe in the presumption of innocence, right? So, we're stuck.
I tried to post this on another thread, but I also think this illustrates why it's not so easy to impeach someone, be it Blago or Cheney. It's a legal proceeding, and defendants lawyer up.
Still, yay for Franken -- yay! yay! -- and I'm sure he'll be seated soon, let that awful mouthpiece Cornyn scream as he likes.
Posted by RLawrence at 01/06/2009 @ 10:23pm
I love Kabuki dances when done by professionals, but the Kabuki done by the United States Senate in regards to Roland Burris is rank amaturish.There is nothing more heroic to the American soul than the "poor soul' "the under dog" For God sakes seat Roland Burris. He seems more qualified than 80 of the present members, including old Harry. He appears less parochial and more an intelligent United states Senator than the majority now serving. I wouldn't mind calling him Honorable "United States" Senator Burris.
Posted by julien38 at 01/06/2009 @ 10:33pm
Posted by TKD at 01/06/2009 @ 6:08pm | In the Burris case, the issues are (1) is he eligible, and (2) was he appointed. Yes, he is, and yes, he was. Anything else is spin.
I couldn't have put that better myself. The Dems are making themselves look silly again.
Where Pelosi and Reid are concerned. I do my part and do a little Hoodoo ritual daily in an attempt to make them go away..
Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 10:59pm
None of you pussies will touch this one cause I got ya' CORNERED once again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL Posted by barry25 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:48pm
The lunatics are coming out of the woodwork, like cockroaches jumping on a twinkie. I might point out barry25 that you folks on the fringe just got your ass handed to you in the last two elections by what you call "pussies".
How does it feel to get your political ass whipped by a bunch of "pussies"? It seems to me that a vast majority of the American electorate has spoken and now you wish to denigrate your fellows by hurling schoolyard taunts. The term "sore loser" comes to mind. You remind me of the whiners in a monopoly game.
Yeah, you really got all us lib's cornered now, don't you?
Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 11:25pm
And who cares about our int'l reputation?
in order for the US to lead, it needs the respect of the world. it is something we used to have. before Bush2, that is.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 11:34pm
.AM radio! No mention of applying the so-called "fairness doctrine" to those churches of liberalism, the MSM, Academia, Hollywood, print media etc.
the fairness doctrine applies to media which use the airwaves, which belong to all people. they are merely loaned to the media companies.
of course Barry is a loudmouthed jerk, with serious self esteem problems.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 11:44pm
of course Barry is a loudmouthed jerk, with serious self esteem problems.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 11:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
glad he's on the other side...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/07/2009 @ 12:10am
What is Reid supposed to do? If the Democrats accept Burris they would be criticized for it. Blagovevich tried to sell the appointment. They have to reject Burris, no matter how decent a person he is.
If Mr. Burris has a case, then he can sue to receive his appointment.
Posted by koroviev at 01/07/2009 @ 12:20am
<i>Posted by koroviev at 01/07/2009 @ 12:20am </i>
Too bad Burris wasn't picked as a midnight judge instead; then history could repeat itself :D
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 12:51am
Well, for starters, the families and friends of about 4,138 US soldiers.
Posted by onthehelm at 01/06/2009 @ 7:46pm
Since when has any true blue, dyed-in-the-wool liberal ever given a rodent's rearend about the U.S. Military or the people who serve?
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 05:28am
Why is Pelosi still 3rd in line for succession to the Presidency?
Posted by WWWexler at 01/06/2009 @ 8:36pm
Wexler, she is NOT 3rd in line. She is 2nd in line for succession with VP being first in line for succession.
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 05:33am
"In addition, they can verify that the person was in fact elected, or in fact appointed. That's it. Not one thing more. "
That isn't correct. The relevant house must also inquire into any corruption in the selection process. The two cases where the Senate refused to seat someone involved exactly that. However, unless there is evidence that Burris was tainted in this, they will have to seat him.
LL, you're wrong on the Constitution again. Since Congress appropriates money for the State Department (and indeed for all foreign operations), it has legitimate oversight authority in how it's spent.
Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2009 @ 06:44am
get sooooo much enjoyment laughing at you libs and pointing out your childish beliefs, behaviors and existence!!!!! LOL!
Posted by barry25 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:22pm | Keep them coming, we get a LOL out of your silly comments too.
Posted by Caj at 01/07/2009 @ 07:00am
Working within the two party system to change it is like going to the bars every day to cure alcoholism. Instead, we should be working to end the control of the two party system, preferably by grasping it around the neck firmly and choking the life out of it. The two parties have driven our nation to the brink of destruction and it is clear that they work for the agenda of the party, not the agenda of the people. The Wall Street bailout is a perfect example. Before that the Treasury Department quietly gave the banking industry $2 trillion and our elected leadership didn't even mention it, they just distracted you with the "$700 billion" bailout bill which actually passed as the $850 billion bailout, a fact lost on most of the chattering class. So, your elected officials have given nearly $3 trillion of your tax dollars to business interests, and now Obama is talking about $800 billion MORE. Is this what you want? If not, what are you going to DO about it? Work within the party? Pfffft.
I saw some chat about the "Fairness Doctrine". We should put it back in a modified form as it would end baseless charges made by windbags on the public airwaves. Just think... Faux News would go out of business, and Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and O'Reilly would have to get REAL jobs.
Fram, obtuseness becomes you.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 01/07/2009 @ 07:05am
Just think... Faux News would go out of business, and Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and O'Reilly would have to get REAL jobs.
Fram, obtuseness becomes you.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 01/07/2009 @ 07:05am
Now there is a wonderful thought, no more loud mouth emty headed fools to listen to. Maybe a chance for intelligent presenters who actually have a brain for us to listen to for a change.
Posted by Caj at 01/07/2009 @ 07:53am
Posted by WWWexler at 01/07/2009 @ 07:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
not sure about some of your figures there. not calling you a liar, understand, just wondering what you mean by the 2 trillion figure.
regardless, how would bringing down the 2 party system make things better? without legislation altering the way we vote (ordinal voting or immediate run off) we would run the risk of less democracy as people with pluralities of the vote could regularly get elected.
but with the changes mentioned above it could work, sure.
again, just wondering how things would better...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/07/2009 @ 07:58am
Now there is a wonderful thought, no more loud mouth emty headed fools to listen to. Maybe a chance for intelligent presenters who actually have a brain for us to listen to for a change.
Posted by Caj at 01/07/2009 @ 07:53am
Further proof that liberals are always right and CANNOT stand to have their positions challenged or for that matter, questioned. Anyone who points out the sheer folly of liberism is loud mouthed and empty headed (caj's words).
So much for liberals being tolerant.
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 08:12am
Currently the voters are presented with binary choices at elections. The two major parties control the debates, they have mastered fundraising, and they have created a byzantine system of "qualifications" which keeps minor parties out of the system.
IF there were an equal playing field for all parties, such as would be created by true and mandatory public financing of political campaigns, the two major parties would have to earn your vote rather than work a Punch-and-Judy show on voters. For example... McCain offers a horrible health care plan, which lets Obama off the hook for single payer... all he has to do is offer something better than McCain's plan. So this is where a third party comes in and runs on single payer. Doctors and their patients say they want single payer, so having a viable candidate/party to put people into the congress who reflect the people's will on this issue will force the two parties to stop offering bad/worse and start sharing power with parties that actually represent the people rather than the insurance industry.
Simple enough, I think.
I will get back to ya on the 2 trillion bank givaway. There is an excellent article on it somewhere, you may find it through Google. Nevertheless, it's not something I made up, it's something that was written by a respected economist writing in a "real" venue.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 01/07/2009 @ 08:24am
This is what I'm talking about.... mysterious.
I can't put the link here... it's a story about the Fed refusing to identify the recipients of two trillion dollars worth of your tax money... reported by Bloomberg...
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 01/07/2009 @ 08:30am
IF there were an equal playing field for all parties, such as would be created by true and mandatory public financing of political campaigns
Posted by WWWexler at 01/07/2009 @ 08:24am
Public financing = terrible idea. First of all, money in politics isn't corrupt. Only people can be corrupt. Second, who would write the rules (pass the legislation) for public financing of political campaigns? The two political parties already in power, that's who. Does that make sense?
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 08:48am
John Nichols - you are much too kind on thin-Reid's supposed leadership of the Sen. Dem. Caucus. He voted against the Big 3 Auto Bailout, which other Democratic leaders fought hard to get passed and he was totally ineffective in mis-managing the further gutting of the FISA, letting the telco's off the hook for unconstitutional spying on the American people. To the current issue of Roland Burris's now-tortuous path to a seat in the U.S. Senate, please, let me share comments I made to Dana Milbanks' article "Rain on Burris's Circus Parade," in today's WaPO:
Dana - sorry, you got it wrong, Blago is not the "illegitimate" governor. He is disgraced, and even infamous, for the evidence made public and the charges against him, which, technically are, at present, allegations. But, he was legitimately elected and while he may be personally impeachable, he used unimpeachable legal authority to appoint Roland Burris. And speaking as an Obama supporter, I find this Senate technicalities witch-hunt, done with, or on behalf of Obama, disgusting. And, I charge you, sir, the WaPo, and all the MSM with failure to report completely by neglecting to mention the gross hypocrisy of the thin-Reid lead Senate Democrats, who meted out not an iota of punishment to certified political traitor Lieberman, who literally campaigned at McCain's side and doubted Obama's qualifications to be president, even letting warlover Joe retain his committee chair, as requested by Obama. And, we must remember that Reid also requested that the Illinois legislature NOT act to have a special election to fill this seat, for fear of losing it to a Repubnican. Burris has an impressive Democratic resume, happens to be an African American, and the people of Illinois deserve more than 50% representation in the Senate
Posted by invoxicated at 01/07/2009 @ 09:37am
to those advocating for an end to our de facto two party system, be careful what you wish for. a multi party system leads to coalition gov'ts, where minority parties often hold inordinate power, because they are needed for the coalition. this is the case in Israel, where the religious shas party, for instance, holds great power, despite their small numbers.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 10:00am
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 08:12am
fram, given your view of the inherent fairness and ease of admission of error of conservatives...
care to name a few things the Right was wrong about?
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 08:12am
Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they have to tolerate disrespect and idiotic comments.
For example, I, and many others in this forum, have served in the military - in my case the first Iraq War. So, when you make comments like:
"Since when has any true blue, dyed-in-the-wool liberal ever given a rodent's rearend about the U.S. Military or the people who serve?"
I'm not tolerant of such comments - particularly since it is my experience that people that pretend to love the military so have never served a day of active duty. Moreover, frequently neither has anyone in their family.
Just so we can check this point, what branch of service were you in and when did you serve? Or, failing that, do you know anyone that has served after World War II? I'd like to know precisely what military ties you have that makes you feel you can make comments like this one.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2009 @ 10:24am
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2009 @ 10:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
allow me to join you in this.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 10:25am
fram, given your view of the inherent fairness and ease of admission of error of conservatives...
care to name a few things the Right was wrong about?
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 10:23am
Mask, Did I say or even imply any such thing?
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 10:30am
Just so we can check this point, what branch of service were you in and when did you serve? Or, failing that, do you know anyone that has served after World War II? I'd like to know precisely what military ties you have that makes you feel you can make comments like this one.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2009 @ 10:24am
USAF 13 years 1980-1993 Capt. 2500 hrs B-52 time. Veteran...Desert Shield/Storm
Father-U.S. Army...TSgt..Korean war vet...Bronze Star recipient
Niece..SSgt U.S. Army currently serving in Afghanastan
Do you wish to continue to look foolish?
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 10:39am
qo:35AM ET - Breaking news, from the AP, Senate decides to seat Burris, thus letting his butt to rest in what is rightfully it's spot, while they all cover their asses.
Posted by invoxicated at 01/07/2009 @ 10:41am
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 10:39am
Well, thank you for your service. Interesting that you served for 13 years, and were only an O-3. Or do aviators prefer to indicate that they were a captain of a plane before their rank? Might also be that promotions are extremely slow in the Air Force since turn over is so slow.
It would be nice if checking weren't necessary. But unfortunately, it is because so many people with your opinions haven't served.
Now, why is it that you feel that you can claim people like me don't care about the military, when we served in the same conflict you did?
Or, would you like to retract that part?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2009 @ 10:54am
"Reid is standing on relatively solid Constitutional ground. The Senate has broad authority to define qualifications for membership in the body."
Not sure about that one, Mr. Nichols. I invite someone to show me otherwise, but it seems to me that the appointment was valid and legal.
I think we are treading on dangerous ground when we start talking about granting the Senate body such "broad authority" to define its own membership.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2009 @ 11:08am
You cannot have 535 people trying to conduct foreign policy.
treaties have to be approved by congress, war must be declared by congress. are these not foreign policy?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 11:31am
He, (the pres) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
congress has the final word.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 11:34am
if congress withholds consent, all the pres' efforts are for naught, he cannot move without them.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 11:41am
Mask, Did I say or even imply any such thing?---Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 10:30am
Uh, yes, you did.
Further proof that liberals are always right and CANNOT stand to have their positions challenged or for that matter, questioned.----Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 08:12am
Or was the part where you equally criticzed conservatives "edited out"????
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:01pm
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2009 @ 10:54am
Dittos, srjenkins, for your service. However, no one needs to thank me for serving. It was MY honor to serve and only very few on the left would even understand that.
Now, to answer your questions. First, I was O-3. Nothing unusual. I did not make Major but I was more interested in flying than I was promotion. My mistake maybe but no regrets, really. After Desert Storm was over, many B-52's were sent to the boneyard...in fact, all B-52G's were retired. I had met all my requirements as far as cockpit duties (hrs) were concerned and there was a significant RiF going on. I bailed, took the money and ran so-to-speak.
The next part of my response goes like this. When U.S. Senators (Democrats) publically state that "this war is lost" and compare our soldiers to Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot's butchers, I get angry. Not a peep from the left. General Betrayus - not a sound from the left. Congressman Murtha (I don't care what his background is)accuses Marines of murder on national T.V., that angers me. I might add the charges have been dismissed on all so far, save one which is still pending. Murtha is being sued and I hope he is taken to the cleaners. These are all liberal democrats and they do nothing but continually undermine our own soldiers at the time when they need all of America's support. They keep getting re-elected and it isn't conservatives voting for them. I could go on. Code Pink? San Francisco? There has been numerous negative stories about the military on this very web site. KVH herself has no love for soldiers or the military. She would have us slash the military budget and give the money to people who do nothing but sit and watch soap operas all day.
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:05pm
She would have us slash the military budget and give the money to people who do nothing but sit and watch soap operas all day. Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yer a nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:01pm
Sorry Mask, I don't think you understand what I was saying.
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:15pm
yer a nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 12:07pm
Read "Butter over Guns" KVH 12/08/08
How does that shoe taste?
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:22pm
yer a nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 12:07pm
See what I mean, srjenkins?
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are right. far better just to ignore. done
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 2:47pm
Posted by fram at 01/07/2009 @ 12:05pm
True enough. Thanks are not necessary. But, I think it is good to say it anyway.
I got out at the same time, so I am very familiar with the force reduction and how much military equipment was mothballed at that time.
While I understand where you are coming from, I have a different perspective.
1. The Democratic Party isn't the left. It may have some members that you could make a plausible argument as being left, such as Kucinich, but there is a reason Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
2. Durbin was raising the issue that the U.S. policy of torture in Gitmo and other places as comparable to other regimes that engaged in torture - what is generally meant by the term, not organ failure.
I would also imagine that the CIA took point on it, and I certainly don't think the military as a whole was involved.
3. While the Betrayus ad was low class, it was raising the point that Gen. Petraeus was fudging facts. It's a legitimate point.
4. I agree that Murtha should not have commented and let the legal system work, but I would also point out that in many cases charges were dropped because the marines in Hadita were offered immunity, and some of the cases are still outstanding. It also seems clear that there was some kind of cover-up.
5. The point the bothers me most about points 1-4 is the fact that they are obvious attempts by policy makers to hide behind the rank-and-file of the military. Bush, Rumsfield, Petraeus aren't "the military", they are policy makers and their policies and behavior are open for discussion. Every time someone tries to limit that discussion and let these people put soldiers in harm's way and their policies continue without debate, they do a disservice to our soldiers and our way of life.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2009 @ 4:44pm
to gloss over atrocities committed by some american troops, remember My Lai, is a disservice to all the troops. the fact that only one person was found guilty of the My Lai massacre, does not mean all the others there are innocent. it merely indicates a failure of the military justice system.
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. Groucho Marx
Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 6:00pm