Archive for the ‘Dick Durbin’ Category

Breaking: Senate Passes Revised Economic Stimulus Plan: 60-38

February 13, 2009

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) just got back  from Ohio, where he was attending his mother’s memorial services, and has casted an “Aye” vote for the economic stimulus package.  That was the 60th Aye vote needed, since Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was not voting.  The 3 Republicans who sided with the Democrats before, Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted with the Democrats.

“Mr. Brown.  Mr. Brown, Aye.”  Those were the words that just came from the Dick Durbin (D-IL) who was presiding over the Senate.  The Senate has just agreed to the bill as it was revised by the conference committee.

This is such a shame, and I’m still angry that they actually made Senator Brown come back to vote.  They couldn’t get Ted Kennedy to come back?  Sure he’s sick, but he wasn’t at MEMORIAL SERVICES for his MOTHER!

Additionally, this bill is a TERRIBLE BILL!  I’m not happy right now.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Harry Reid and Dick Durbin Hold Press Conference to Discuss Roland Burris’s Future in the Senate

January 7, 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) showed, again, that they were legal cowards again today.  Take a look at the following press conference held by the 2 Senators and I’ll discuss what they said below:

Now, why did I call them cowards?  Because they are ignoring what they must know to be right.  I explained yesterdaythat this case is similar to the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court case.

Instead of waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the Secretary of State must co-sign the certificate (which, if they rule in favor of the SoS, they just significantly reduced the power of the Governor to an insanely low level), the Senate should take the precedent of Marbury v. Madison.  They should understand that the co-signing by the Secretary of State is a ministerial duty required by law, not a fundamental part of the nomination process, and they should allow Roland Burris to fill the vacancy created by President-Elect Barack Obama.  End of story.  Instead, they’re going about this in some asinine politically correct way because the Democrats in the Senate are too scared to ever stand up for something.

After all the talk Democrats said about, “We should’ve stood up to Bush about the War in Iraq instead of just signing on with it,” I’d think that the Democrats would have the decency to uphold a precedent set down by the United States Supreme Court over 200 years ago!  The fact that they fail to see (or at least admit) that Roland Burris must be provided with a remedy to his rights being violated shows that the current state of this Senate and the American process as a whole is a very sad state.

I disagree with Roland Burris’s politics, but his right has been violated here, and “the laws of his country afford him a remedy.”  If the Majority Leader of the United States Senate fails to see that, then Harry Reid is NOT fit to remain Majority Leader!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

The Democrats Don’t Want Lieberman Anymore?

July 18, 2008

There is now a rumor going around that Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT-McCain) will be kicked out of the Democratic Caucus and lose his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.  He was given that position after he agreed to caucus with the Democrats in 2006, when they needed him to give them the lead.

Now, a website, LiebermanMustGo.com, is asking people to sign a petition for Lieberman to lose his chairmanship and be kicked out of the caucus after the November elections, when the Democrats are expected to pick up more seats, so they won’t need him anymore.  The petition has now gathered over 48,000 signatures.  Robert Greenwald, who helped design the site, said, “Given that Lieberman is actively and aggressively attacking the candidate for presidency of his party, it seems pretty clear he should not be given any of the perks that come with being a member of the Democratic Party.”

The whole thing started when Lieberman agreed to address the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lieberman told reporters that he left the weekly lunch of the Senate Democrats on Tuesday when criticisms of McCain’s energy policies came up, saying, “I just didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to be there.”  Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) said that a Senator came up to him to complain about Lieberman.  Durbin told reporters, “It was the right thing to do.  This is a delicate situation.”  Sorry, Mr. Durbin, but that’s not being a very good party whip right there.  Good for Lieberman, bad for you and the party.

Asked about crossing a point of no return, Lieberman told reporters, “I don’t have any line that I have in my mind.  If it happened, I’d know it when I saw it.”  He, however, said that he doesn’t expect to leave the Democratic caucus any time soon: “Senator Reid has been easy to work with.  I have a lot of good friends in the caucus, and I don’t have any intention of doing that before the end of this session of Congress.”

And Lieberman isn’t worried about getting kicked out of his position, saying, “That decision is up to my colleagues in the Democratic caucus next year.  I’m going to do what I think is right now and not worry about what the political consequences may be for me.  I strongly support John McCain.  I believe in him, his strength, his principle, his effectiveness, so if he thought that I could help him by speaking at the Republican convention, I would do that.  And I would do it really not to go and attack anybody but to explain why I as a Democrat have crossed party lines to support John McCain and why I hope a lot of other Democrats and independents will do the same.”

Lately, Lieberman has been critical of Barack Obama; on a CNN interview he called him “naïve” on Iran, and said, The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’”

He criticized Obama’s lack of a consistent stance on issues during a FOX interview, saying, “Senator Obama has really moved.  Since he clinched the nomination a month ago, he has altered and nuanced more big positions more quickly than I can remember any other presidential nominee.”

Here are some reactions from Senators:

  • Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I very much regret what he’s doing, candidly, but there isn’t anything I can do about it, and that’s really all I want to say.”
  • Chris Dodd (D-CT): “I think they’re heading in the wrong direction.  And I see Joe as an ally on most matters and a person who’s been supportive of Democrats here on most issues.”
  • Susan Collins (R-ME) (Lieberman has donated to her campaign): “My hope is that he will not be punished for doing what he thinks is right.”
  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “Anytime we have a problem here, with the exception of Iraq, Joe Lieberman’s with us.  So I wish people would leave him alone.  We’ll get to next year when we get there.”

I say he should just stand up one day, give ‘em the finger and move to the other side of the aisle.  That’s some C-SPAN daytime drama for ya!

If I were him, I would not let them use me, just to kick me to the side of the road when they don’t want me anymore.  Show them that they can’t just use you and then dump you.

Now, I say all of this, but I should note that I disagree with Lieberman on most issues.  If McCain were to pick him as his VP (which Lieberman said he does not want, nor expect), it’d be stupid of McCain.  You don’t pick a VP because you agree with them on one main issue.

I like Lieberman, but he’s a liberal – but the Democrats would be stupid to do this to him.  It could come to haunt them.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Clinton’s Justification for Staying in the Race: “Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”

May 24, 2008

Alright, I haven’t had time to post in a while, so I’d like to start off by wishing Senator Kennedy the best of luck as he deals with his health problems.  Although I can’t stand him personally, nobody should go through what he is going through.

Now, on to the news … earlier this week, Clinton responded to a question from the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Argus Leader editorial board about her dropping out by saying, “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.  You know I just, I don’t understand it.”

Yikes.  I mean, it wasn’t an extremely terrible statement, but it was inappropriate to use that as a memory for how long campaigns go.  I mean, that’s like Ben Stiller talking about Zoolander coming out in the same month as the September 11th attacks – it’s not really relevant (true, Clinton was talking about 2 campaigns, but there are lots of campaigns that have extended until June).  There were plenty of other events in 1968 that Clinton could’ve talked about.

Apparently this isn’t the first time Clinton has brought up the assassination.  She told Time magazine back in March, “Primary contests used to last a lot longer.  We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California.  Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”  At least she said it a little more tastefully there.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly capitalized on the poor wording, saying, “Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee responded by saying that Clinton was simply using Bill and Kennedy “as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous.”

Clinton came out and told reporters, “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.  I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. … I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns of both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June.  That’s a historic fact.  The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy.  I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.  I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.  My view is that we have to look to the past to our leaders who have inspired us, give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the Kennedy family.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL-Obama) told reporters, “I know Hillary Clinton, and the last thing in the world she’d ever want is to wish misfortune on anybody. She and Barack are friends.  It was … a careless remark and we’ll leave it at that.”

I’ll agree with Durbin (YIKES!).  I mean, it’s not like Obama hasn’t had his poor-wording-moments; I just think Clinton has had more.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers

%d bloggers like this: