The Pit and the Pendulum
 

No, this is not going to be about movies.

I notice that the Republican-controlled Congress is busy changing rules, so that the concerns of the minority party need not be addressed. Ethics committee and Finance committee, at the moment. Because they can.

Well, this nation has traditionally had a democratic-controlled Congress. One might expect that could happen again. Kinds naive to think it won't. So, who is going to feel sorry for the Republicans when that happens and their voice is simply disregarded. Right now, most federal judges were appointed by republican presidents. And now Dubya is trying to cram some real doozies down our throats.

And Dubya and his gang don't seem so good at building bridges, or consensus. There's a divisiveness in our countrie's politics right now, and I just wonder if there are any conservatives on the Board who understand why that's not going to play well for your party. There's paybacks, and then there's the likelihood that this nasty, in-your-face, because-we-can arrogance is going to help turn the pendulim around.

Frankly, I understand how my nation needs both voices in Congress. But just as frankly, I can tell you that when the pendulum does swing back, there is going to be some pain that I will enjoy watching. This is the nastiest, most arrogant and most offensive (not just to American libs, but to most of the Western world's polulation) administration anyone has ever seen. They're asking for it. Anybody think they can avoid the end game I know will come?

I really do tend to agree with you, Jim. I care for neither party, personally, but the politically myopic conduct I see displayed just on this board and later on various news channels, embarrasses me as a citizen. To think that an approach of "my way or the highway" should suffice in a world where people, if not already democratic, know quite well what democracy is, shows horrible disrepect for human consciousness. The other day I was trying to come up with a list of what Bush has accomplished since his presidency, and to be honest, I came up with nothing. Iraq is a quagmire, the economy sucks, our borders have to be guarded by ordinary citizens, and everyone seems to be employed with American jobs except Americans. And as far as one's personal rights and freedoms on the precipice of being nearly abolished at the helm of this administration...well, I won't even start about that.

However, lately there have been cracks in the elephant. Tom DeLay, Schiavo, Social Security and the ever-looming Iraq quagmire, have all taken their toll on the party. I believe there's more in-fighting among Republicans than they are letting onto or the press knows. Such lack of spirit tells me the party is heading down a path from which it will not recover. If this is the case, the infighting and lack of togetherness could insure a Democratic victory in '08. Yes, it will probably be more of the same two-party b.s., but at least the smug pronouncements akin to "I'm right and everyone else is wrong," won't be something we will be forced to be part of as Americans.

I had always thought it would be the democratic party that would self destruct first, but as time goes on it looks like the republicans will do themselves in first instead.

Perhaps their current attacks against the media and the judicial system are preparations to weaken the arbiters and critics of their next contested elections.

As long as they think that they control the electoral process their arrogance will know no bounds.

I'm interested in these ethics issues - So I'll be watching what's going on.

Re: The Pit and the Pendulum
 

You must be talking about the state of Washington government (DEMOCRATS.)
9.5cent/gallon tax INCREASE passes, and the legislators CHEER.

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...artysmiley.gif $http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif $http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...artysmiley.gif $http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/.../partygirl.gif http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/ura.gifhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/smash.gif



yeah, THAT's representative of the people. The people are so happy to pay more for gas..:rolleyes:
. . .in the state w/ the 3rd highest gas-tax already

There has never been a filibuster to prevent a senate confirmation of a judge - until now. What the Democrats are doing is desparation.

Filibustering a judge's nomination is not a rule change, but I certainly wont feel sorry the next time a Democrat president (if one ever gets elected) nominates a judge and the GOP plays the filibuster card.

This precedent goes beyond Borking - at least that guy got a hearing.

Oh and going after Tom Delay - he's actually my congressman - is fine with me. Politics on a national level is a nasty business. Newt Gingrich went after the Dem speaker of the house on that book deal years ago and took the guy out. Washington is not for pussies.

Also, who should the GOP reach out to? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? Al Sharpton? Barbara Boxer? Harry Reid? These are the leaders of your party. I like the countries chances with W, Bill Frist, Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert in charge rather than those freaks.

The pendulum will swing back some day - just not as far. We will never again see the Democrats control congress for decades at a time. I would go so far as to say the democrats have been irrelevant since 1994 when the GOP took over congress - and you can thank the fat hillbilly and his "wife" for that!

Re: Re: The Pit and the Pendulum
 

The people also want less traffic congestion and decent schools. Folks who pretend that money (taxes) is not necessary to accomplish these things are either deluded or worse (deliberately misleading). As I have said many many times before, if you chat with a legislator who has been around these past few years, you will not find any of them, even conservatives, who will pretend this. It doesn't make sense. But it's cute and fun to pretend, I guess, and to other folks who are also clueless, it maybe even sounds clever.

The rule change proposal, as I understand it, is to deny the filibuster option. So, when the dems are back in control, I wonder how brutal they might be to your beloved conservative party. Dubya and the gang are not exactly building bridges and holding out the olive branch. This is why he's been monumentally ineffective, this is why they think they need to change the rules of Congress, and this will be why they will be one sorry lot when the dems are back on the bridge.

BTW, I am told there also has never been appointees that were so viciously fundamentalist and who can be relied upon to apply principles like religion and morality from a bench that should be applying.....the law.

Oh, and I'm not so sure the dems cannot rule the nation longterm again. This nation is likely to get a bellyfull of the antics we're discussing here. And religion is not the purpose of Congress, which the voters will eventually figure out. And the dems like government, believe in government, and know how to run government. That's a striking contrast to the folks running Congress right now.

Again, the point of this thread is the political equivalent of the time-honored professional advice: Be careful who you trample on your way up the ladder. Those same folks will be encountered on your way back down. Tit for tat. The Golden Rule. I guess we're reconsidering whether democracy (everyone having a voice) is really a good idea after all?

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator. - George W Bush, December 18, 2000

Video here: http://www.newsgateway.ca/bush_dictator.htm

Supe this doesn't even sound like something you'd post. "I am told..."!! Told by who? Claire Shipman? Katie Couric? Chris Matthews? Since when do you ever take anyone's word w/o reaserching it yourself. Look at the qualifications of the nominees, not the fact that they were nominated by W.

The GOP is considering unprecedented congressional strategies because the democrats have actually stated that they will filibuster a vote on the judges. Never before has this been tried.

Also, being a man of faith, you know that the entire constitution has a religeous and moral foundation, not a secular one. If we were to eliminate all laws that have a moral and/or religeous component, the penal code will shrink to a pamphlet roughly the same size as "Great Democrats of the 22nd Century".

I'd like to see your source on that.

"When Republicans enjoyed a majority during Bill Clinton's presidency, they simply outvoted Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and blocked nominees there, without a full Senate vote. If that option didn't look promising, the GOP could "slow walk" nominees with tools ranging from the "hold" (a kind of mini-filibuster to slow down or block nominations) to simply refusing to hold confirmation hearings. There is also the venerable practice of senatorial courtesy, used liberally by both parties, that gives senators a virtual veto on nominees who come from their state or will hold office there."

Source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4534268

Also, "...filibusters rarely delay for long measures that enjoy the broad support of the American people."

You take away the filibuster and you take away representation of 49% of the country in the decision making process.

Conclusion: Republicans are whining little hypocrites.

Number of Clinton's judicial nominees that the Republican Senate blocked: 64

Number of Bush's judicial nominees that the Democrats have blocked: 10.

There are currently 43 judicial vacancies. This compares to the Republicans, who by September 1997 had forced 103 vacancies by not confirming nominated judges.

During Clinton’s term, Republican Senators blocked 35% of President Clinton’s nominees to the federal appellate courts for policy reasons. Republicans threatened to stop all confirmations or eliminate judicial seats to prevent Clinton from selecting his own judges, insisting that they were entitled to choose half of the judges.

Republican's are banking on the fact that Americans as a whole have short memories. This is another example of 'good old boys' trying to replace ethics with their network. It's common in the south and now it's common in Washington. Ethics smethics.

The bottom line is that the democrats in congress had been more productive in allowing the appointment of judges in the senate; right up until the Republicans got control again.

SmileWavy

All the techniques you mention are used by both sides - voting against the nominee in committee, not holding the confirmation hearing, delaying the vote until the candidate gets pissed off and quits.

The technique that hasn't been used is the filibuster of the actual vote in the Senate.

I believe that a president should be able to appoint who he wants to appoint as long as they're qualified. Now the judges are being "judged" on their policy decisions rather than their qualifications. That's wrong whether it's the left or the right doing the obstructing.

The desparation I'm talking about is that the Democrats are not getting their agenda through at the ballot box or in congress since they're out of power. The only avenue left is the courts. So they're trying to make sure GOP friendly judges aren't appointed who would be antagonistic to they're causes - gay marriage, abortion, gun control etc.

Craig, it's all hearsay regardless of where you get your information, unless you were in the room when these judges issued the decisions which are regarded as bench legislating. As Mike says, the dems typically work with the other party, trying for consensus, and now the republicans are changing that.

And no, I am not comfortable legislating faith or morality. Freedom does indeed have a strange definition right now. Freedom is for industrial/commercial entities. Regulation is for people. That's the opposite of what I would prefer. And I'm a fairly conservative Catholic. Frankly the Big Guy gave us, more than anything, a choice. Mandating certain behavior and prohiting certain others is not going to slip anyone into Heaven sideways. It needs to be a free choice, including the opportunity for bad choices.

I don't see it this way at all. Not at all. One of the most important principles of our form of government is that the majority is not permitted to ride roughshod over the minority. Your party is changing this, at its peril. Your president is the most ineffective in decades, but the one bit of damage he potentially can do is to the judiciary, and he's shoving his fundamentalist agenda down the throat of the entire nation. Contrary to majority preference. You should be alarmed. He's trashing your party, as he trashes my nation.

And even if he's successful, this nation simply does not want this kind of control over individual choices. So, whatever damage he does will need to be repaired, and my party is going to be the White Nights, the liberators, soon.

Sorry Supe, I have to disagree. The bizzare rulings that are coming out of the courts are all coming from your appointees.

° The complete removal of anything religeous from courthouses, public squares, schools and government offices,

° The strange rulings governing school funding to the point of judges raising taxes in school districts.

° The "right" to gay marriage found in the Massachusettes constitution.

° The Boy Scouts being ruled discriminatory for having morals.

As far as being inneffective, Bush is getting his way on everything, just as Clinton did for two years - right up until he raised taxes. For the rest of his first term and all of his second term, his job was hanging on to his job.

Bush is not inneffective, he's trying to fix social security, battle terrorism, cut taxes and he's getting all that done. The only things he's not doing is cutting spending and fixing immigration. That is what will come back to bite the GOP in the ass, not their nominees for judges.

Re: The Pit and the Pendulum
 

And Gregoire and her gang don't seem so good at building bridges, or consensus. There's a divisiveness in our state's politics right now, and I just wonder if there are any liberals on the Board who understand why that's not going to play well for your party. There's paybacks, and then there's the likelihood that this nasty, in-your-face, because-we-can arrogance is going to help turn the pendulim around.

Frankly, I understand how my state needs both voices in Olympia. But just as frankly, I can tell you that when the pendulum does swing back, there is going to be some pain that I will enjoy watching. This is the nastiest, most arrogant and most offensive (not just to Washington conservatives, but to most of the Western world's population) state government anyone has ever seen. They're asking for it. Anybody think they can avoid the end game I know will come?

Exactly what I was thinking, Jeff.

yet supe will not see the same of his in your face - tax & spend Demo-buds.

Jeff, Island.... This is my point and I'm grateful for the current day illustration. What MAY BE happening in Olympia will happen on a grander scale in Congress. That's the point of this thread. And it is my believe that the behavior of the "r"'s while they are in power is what leads to this. They do not build consensus. And you're going to see some major tit-for-tat. And then you'll blame it on the libs.

And while we're at it, another thing I think is behind the comments you make, particularly Island it seems, is this notion, this fantasy, that any time taxes are levied something must obviously be wrong. Taxes build roads, fund schools, etc. Gubmint is not free. Your party pretends it is free. Hates it in fact, because it gets in the way of commercial profits. And so there are many people who believe like you do. That there is no need for taxes. It's dishonest, and eventually some group of people have to pick up the pieces and repair the damage. Look at the financial position your "president" is placing your nation in. Look. It's stark. Striking. There is no way to hide it. So, out go the lies and they are partly designed to villify the group of people they know will HAVE TO come in soon and bite the bullet and make the repairs.

You have never really responded, Island, to the question I pose. Or should I say the condition I identify. Do you think there is a transportation infrastructure problem in Western Washington and if so, will the money for improvements come from a source other than citizens? And I know you have heard me emphatically describe our Legislature's witch hunt of WSDOT and the unanimous view on both sides of the aisle that there is no longer another single drop of extra efficiency to be squeezed from that agency....so I am sure I don't need to warn you away from this convenient (for several of the last twenty years) diversion of attention away from the real problem.

RTA (passed)= Billions of suplemental tax $ for transportation infrastructure in Western;);) Washington.
Monorail (passed)= Big Millions of suplemental tax $ for transportation infrastructure in Western;);) Washington.

'Kitsap Co . . you want a much needed bridge? . . .. pay for it yourselves.'

Our State Gobnr, focusing on raising money for the " transportation infrastructure problem in Western Washington"
. . .p'lease. it's the same old shakedown.

Let me ask you this Supe; how was the 520 bridge paid for the first time . ...back when taxes were lower, and hardly anyone lived here? (read: small tax base)

Quite the dodge and twist there Island; hope you didn't sprain anything :)

The GOP accuses the Democratic party of supporting Liberal justices who legislate liberally from the bench yet when they want to appoint conservative judges to legislate conservatively from the bench and the Dems try to block it they cry foul. I don't really believe that ALL of the liberal judges are legislating from the bench though I will not say there are those that do not. It's the same thing - If you fellas were out there trying to nominate someone reasonable who wasn't going to do this then I would be crying foul on the democrats stalling but that isn't the case - oh and historically speaking with this senate if it were the judge would have already been approved. You aren't trying to get these judges in as much as you're trying to ensure that when the president appoints his "judicial legislature" ...er..I mean judge to the next supreme court opening that you get whom ever you want regardless of the other 49% of the country.

Yeah.

Hypocrites to the last.


Personally I feel that if a judge cannot be broadly accepted then he shouldn't be appointed so I have no problem with a minority - republican or democrat doing what they can to block them. :D

for those who can't read between. . .

I think the "transportation infrastructure problem in Western Washington" is VASTLY over-blown, in an effort to extarct EVEN MORE money, beyond the Billions of suplemental tax $ for transportation.

Understand, there is no way in HELL that the transportation infrastructure projects are underfunded here. Yet, they continue to find ways to extort money, in the name of the perpetual problem.

No kidding. Let me see if I can ask the question more clearly:

Do you think there is a transportation infrastructure problem in Western Washington and if so, will the money for improvements come from a source other than citizens?

I'll also be interested in whether you feel those measures (RTA, Monorail) are appropriate. And then there's the shakedown remark that leaves me wondering if you're one of those folks who incorrectly believe that Eastern Washington tax money pays for Western Washington services. But I don't want that right now. Right now, I just want to know if you think there is sufficient transportation infrastructure in Western Washington.

Western Washington !? . .d'ya mean Seattle ?

To put it bluntly (which you will leverage later) No, I don't think that there is a transportation infrastructure problem in Seattle, which is not already being addressed. (prior to the new gas tax . . . prior to the RTA boondoggle)


But this is about your post and Jeffs parot-post about how the gubmnt is losing . . .the pendulum will swing . . . Eyman will have a third "$30 car tab intiative" . . . it will pass a third time . .. our arrogant "representatives" will find a away to defeat it for a third time.

How long can that go on? . ..the Pit & the Pendulum.

Ummm, how much do you think an ordinary freeway overpass costs? You seem to have a strong opinion that there is PLENTY of money for all we need. I've heard whining about how it takes twice as long to plan a project as it does to execute it. That is true. There are civil engineer here, and they will tell you that the last thing you want your gubmint to do is to award a construction contract before the planning has been completed. Can you say "change order?" So yeah. Planning is where you SAVE money.

Freeway overpasses run probably anywhere from $10 million to $30 million. Maybe more. Experts seem to be in agreement that we are somewhere near TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS behind in our transportation infrastructure here. A billion is a thousand million.

You can pretend this is just outrageous and untrue, but you'd be wrong. I think you just don't like to pay taxes, and blaming others is complaining, which is fun and which is sometimes thought to be intelligent. No, I'm not giving you any back-handed or front-handed insult. If you truly think that there is plenty of money to achieve our transportation goals here, then I'm very interested in your basis for that opinion. I know you don't like gubmint or taxes. I don't like taxes either. But I believe they are necessary and I support my community and its needs.

Oh, and by the way. Is "Seattle" going to be the next obscenity? Like "Liberal?" Candidly, as you probably know, the economic activity in Seattle and its resultant tax base funds projects all across Washington State. Your local roads are as good as they are because of Seattle's commercial muscle. If you want, we can starve Seattle for necessary commercial tools like transportation infrastructure, but you'd be one of the big losers if that happened. I get hammered for being anti-business, but this is exactly what business is crying out for. Commerce needs to NOT have its trucks stuck on I-5 all afternoon. And it is, indeed, largely those commercial concerns that I'm going to bat for when I launch into these diatribes.

Well I don't know. Liberal Gobnr Chris G. seems to be avoiding the word Seattle . . .euphemistically using "Western Wash":rolleyes:

. . .isn't Kitsap in Western Wash?

But of course the big bux are in Seattle, so lets just wink & nod; and say "Western Washington"

Supe, explain to me the logic of BILLIONs for a short-run TRAIN !

explain to me the logic of moving MOUNTAINS (your seatac POS project) for a third runway . .. when the REGION would have been better served by giving Everett, and all up North an international airport at the EXISTING Paine Field (where the big planes are born) !?

All those people must drive THRU Seattle to get to the in-crowd controlled SEATTLE airport.

Explain those, buddy.

While you're at it explain why the traffic-clogging Marineers stadium was built, by your gubmnt, AFTER the voters REJECTED the idea.

is baseball a right?

I think that you are blinded by your gubmnt can do no wrong ideal.

I shook my head when the stadium decision was made.

Is Boeing going to abandon the largest building in the world and stop making 747's and 777's? Whole new international airports are even more expensive than adding a runway. There was talk about another airport in Thurston County, but I think that would have been silly. Mostly the anti-runway stuff you've heard has been sour grapes from folks here who would like us to detonate Sea-Tac and rebuild in someone else's backyard. But if Everett wants and needs a facility, then that's a good discussion. The need for another runway here would probably still exist. In our private lives, it makes sense to build excess capacity. Not sure why it would not make sense in the public sector.

I'm not afraid of the term "Seattle" even if Christine Gregoire is. On the other hand, "Seattle" might not be as accurate as "Western Washington." On some days, Island, stop and go traffic extends southward through south King County, completely through Pierce County, through Thurston County nearly to Lewis County, half way to Portland.

abandon? - no. share? - yes.

Tell me, the third runway . .. that is a stream of dump-trucks dumping, 24 hrs a day, for how many YEARS?

and what does that do to our roads?

NO WAY does that 3rd ruway cost less than getting Everett going. That was just BAD regional planning . .. driven by greed and power-bases.

Right. And how does spending Billions on a short-run train thru Seattle help this? -- it was bad planning.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct is sinking, not due to earthquake damage to the structure, but due to letting the sea-wall, that holds up the dirt, that holds up the Viaduct foundation, go to the worms . .. it has been neglected. -- Bad Planning!

SO now we get to have a Seattle BIG DIG . .. . and what will happen to theose hundred ot thousands of cars that use that every day?

Right, they will be routed to I-5 . .. where the traffic for the mariners games will be. .. .where the traffic for the Seatac airpot will be.

I'm sure the idea is to clog I-5 so badly that the voters can be TOLD the even more money is needed . . and WILL be extracted.

That's an intriguing idea for a regional airport. Sharing with Boeing. Might be a good idea, and perhaps it should get looked at. It looks as if it would be cheaper than our runway. Certainly cheaper than our whole modernization project.

Two shifts, when weather permits, but not 24 hours. Still, it is wear and tear on our roads. It's 850,000 truckloads.

So, we agree on some stuff. But the remark about bad regional planning and greed, well that is a remark that would be appropriate after quite a bit of fact-finding that I'm not convinced has been done in your case. Truth is, Sea-Tac airport passed its capacity a few years ago. It was designed for something like 25m passengers per year and we hit something like 27m a few years ago. It needed to be expanded. Or, again, build an entire new airport. Colossally expensive. I don't believe that sharing Payne with Boeing would have satisfied this (Seattle) region's growth. Lots of folks looked at this and considered many options. They firmly believe that good stewardship of public funds was achieved with this decision. To disagree, one would have to understand the decision, the alternates and the criteria/consequences. They are complex. I work with folks who seem to be doing the best they can. But maybe they made a mistake by not phoning you. Oh, wait. There were public hearings. Nevermind.:D

In my mind, the jury's still out on the train thing. I'm not convinced, but then I'm also not knowledgeable enough to draw a conclusion. I like the impact that public transportation options can have, but making those systems work well (ridership) is not easy. But it is important. It's important to be able to get those minimum wage workers from their cheap homes outside the high-cost areas, into those high-cost areas to make inexpensive burgers for the rest of us.

So how many years? . ..at 1,000 loads per day, everyday (like that will happen) A bit over TWO YEARS!

so, come on now . .. .you told me how many millions are in a billion :rolleyes: . .so how many YEARS is this expected to take? (to move a mountain. . .east-coast sized mnt;)

Who is the conspiracy theorist here?

I appreciated the information you gave one day about the sea wall. I checked it out and you are correct. I'd additionally say you are correct in asserting that bad planning is everywhere. If we could have preserved it, great. Shame on us if we missed taht oportunity. If if not, at least we could have been ahead of the curve in terms of repair/replacement. But the voters are so scary and they believe taxes are not needed and our Legislature has been fairly conservative during that exact same time period. At this point we all agree we're way behind the 8-ball. And it looks like you are aware that the needed improvements are going to be excruciatingly painful. (I think they're planning to run AWV traffic through downtown somehow. Still, not pretty.) We should have started twenty years ago.

The Big Dig is in question. It'll be wildly expensive. On the other hand, it would eliminate the eyesore/obstruction of a raised freeway right between the world's most charming city, and the sea.

Actually, it started three years ago or so, and won't be completed until 2008. But it's not as if we're hauling all that time. There was a year or so when we did not haul at all. And I've never heard of a 24-hour plan. We're currently running about a hundred trucks a day I think, fifty per shift over two shifts. It's something like 16 million cubic yards altogether.

But again, Island, sometimes it sounds like you take the very most easy road in these discussion. Point out how large and expensive it is, and then conclude it's idiotic. Yeah, it's big. Yeah, it's expensive. But what's really expensive is a hundred thousand people sitting in their cars parked on the freeway for an extra hour each day, and businesses deciding to bag their Seattle operations until we get our you-know-what together. It's like getting old. It seems like a bad deal until you consider the alternative.

Well, I know that when I'm finacially behind the 8-ball, I find it best to spend extravagently. :rolleyes: Why buy take a bus when someone is selling new Porsches?

"eliminate the eyesore/obstruction"
So you don't like the view, driving the raised freeway right between the world's most charming city, and the sea?

100+ thousand people who work and live here, enjoy that view every day. You think that we ought to take that away . .. so the tourist on the waterfront can . . .?
. .. or is it the big$ realestate guys that you would like to see get a big boost in property value?

No, those points/roads are the minutia.

The bigger point is .. :cool: