Or does it need those closed doors?
There's an old saying: "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." But if we care about democracy, we should do what we can to strengthen the counterproposition: Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we are denied the chance to see how they are made.
January 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
105 comments:
Good. Maybe we shouldn't be "inspired" with the way laws are made these days. Maybe the way laws are made these days is the whole problem. Maybe Congress should be forced to vote not based on favors but based on what's best and what isn't.
But laws will be harder to pass.
Maybe they should be making fewer laws!
Two quick questions:
1. Does the same logic cause you to favor televising all judicial proceedings? (It worked out so well in the O.J. case.)
2. Was there ever a single instance during the secretive Bush Administration when you called for more transparency?
We know the answer to the second question. Bush could do no wrong, no matter how secretive his administration!!!
The people in our government have no idea how offensive it would be to us proles for this to be done behind closed doors.
I say: If these assholes lock out C-SPAN, then expect riots, blood in the streets, strongly-worded blog posts, etc, etc...
They will not let you watch the sausage being made.
Tony B outs himself as a troll...
One Barack H. Obama made the following promise on the campaign trail:
We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.
Why is it wrong to expect Obama to fulfill a campaign promise from time to time?
Somebody call a doctor. I think Tony B just stroked out.
btw... that photo at the link is fucking perfect...
wv: "copire" - our political system in America right now
Remember, transparency was used by Obama to further his appeal to independents and other non-core constituencies. Since none of his actions (or inactions) since taking office followed this path, he has lost much of their support.
Now, he seems to have little desire to win them back.
"Remember, transparency was used by Obama to further his appeal to independents and other non-core constituencies."
Obama, like all people who are steeped in the morally bankrupt cesspool of Post Modernism, lies with no compunction whatsoever. Anybody who takes him at his word is a fool.
Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we are denied the chance to see how they are made.
But laws, unlike sausages, are not made to be picked and chosen.. they also apply to vegetarians.
BTW - Obama is about to speak about the atempted plane bombing.
2. Was there ever a single instance during the secretive Bush Administration when you called for more transparency?
Completely and totally different circumstances!
Transparency and sausages? Incubus-in-Chief and Succubus Pelosi have forgotten the most relevant old saw:
TANSTAAFL
Gitmo si - Yamen no..
and they say its not political.
Completely and totally different circumstances!
Way to thrash that strawman, garage. Try arguing with real people next time.
Obama specifically promised CSPAN during the reconciliation process. Why do you think it's okay to renege on such a promise? Because Bush never promised it?
This is not about an everyday Law being passed in Congress. This is about the end of life as we have known it. The executioners need to allow us watch our own public hanging so that any chance survivors will remember never again to vote for a DemonRat pretending to be our Representative or a Senator instead of an enemy agent. This calls to mind the half-breed Indian Chiefs that sold out their the tribes lands in a Treaty that was bought by bribes paid directly to the Chief's families 188 years ago in Northeastern Georgia.
Was there ever a single instance during the secretive Bush Administration when you called for more transparency?
The answer is no. I checked.
However, transparency was as Obama campaign promise. At least one commenter voted for Obama because he promised transparency. Althouse voted for him and now she wants her transparency too.
Let's put and end to the "laws and sausages" quote. It really isn't funny. People have sort of seen the process in this case, and it disgusts them. Seeing it even more clearly would be a great civics lesson and something they might want to bring with them to the polls in the future.
2. Was there ever a single instance during the secretive Bush Administration when you called for more transparency?
Completely irrelevant if only because two wrongs never make a right. Didn't you learn that in kindergarten?
When are you Obama supporters going to learn that criticizing, or in this case, simply HOLDING HIM AT HIS WORD, does not equal supporting Bush in any way, shape, or form.
The new garage mahal line: Obama is right to break any and all promises he made that Bush didn't.
So if Obama vetoes the health care plan, and people complain, garage will say, "Did you complain when BUSH vetoed the health care plan?"
And that will shut US up good.
Was there ever a single instance during the secretive Bush Administration when you called for more transparency?
Was there ever a single instance where the government attempted to take over one sixth of the economy in secret during the Bush Administration? Or should this only be reserved for the secretive Obama Administration?
wv: watousi - watch the Dems dance.
TonyB:
I don't think Bush said he was going to have Cspan watching anything he did or proposed. It was Obama who made the specific promise about Cspan and this specific bit of legislation. But I suppose he can say anything he wishes and if Bush didn't do it it is fine for him not to do it. Is that your point? I mean, I know it is the worst sin in the lefty world to ask of one president something that one did not ask of all presidents, but can you not see the inanity of your remarks?
Beware the question that begins by asserting, "quick question."
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
The Left, 2001-2008: "Bush is the worst, most awful President we've ever had. A complete disaster."
The Left, 2009+: "Obama's not doing anything Bush didn't do."
Oy.
I'll agree that Bush was one of the worst Presidents in our history (top 10 at least); but y'know, this argument only works for so long.
@ScottM, we're on the same page here.
The "quick question" phrase sometimes is a device that a person uses when they think they are asking a rhethorical question. It's designed to act as a trap.
I sincerely doubt that you will be more inspired about sausages if you see everything that goes into their making!
Although Obama's breaking another campaign promise, this isn't a big deal.
The problem is that the health care bill sucks. Obama is incompetent, and everyone knows it, including Obama.
The reason Obama's supporters or defenders (does he have any supporters lef?t) keep mentioning W. is that Obama is every bit as arrogant and incompetent as W.
We are living in the WO years. Hopefully they will end at noon EST on Jan. 20, 2013.
We used to buy sausages at an Italian pork store in Greenwich Village that was made right in front of us.
Pelosi sticks finger in Obama's eye:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi had little to say this afternoon at a press conference following a meeting between House leaders and health care principals.
But Pelosi did toss a jab President Obama's way.
Referring to one of Obama's campaign pledges, a reporter asked Pelosi whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed to film the House-Senate negotiations.
"There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail," said a bemused Pelosi.
Forget the sausage, yon don't want to see chickens being prepared.
My Cajun grandmother - who is, yes, in heaven if there is one - used to pick them up by the head, flip them over her shoulder breaking their necks. They'd flop around for awhile and then adios.
Okay, if chickens are guarding the Pearly gates, Grandma didn't make it.
Our national motto should be make more sausage and fewer laws. Our congress critters don't have a clue as to what is important and needs regulating.
Most people don't care about transparency in government. They just want results. Meaning more nanny-state solutions. Only political junkies care about C-SPAN.
Televise the process and every member of Congress will either be impeached or recalled, as state law dictates - those who make it through the mobs outside the Capitol.
As to the transparency of the previous administration, do the words, "national security", ring any bells? (I know, there is no terrorist threat)
Freeman Hunt said...
Good. Maybe we shouldn't be "inspired" with the way laws are made these days. Maybe the way laws are made these days is the whole problem. Maybe Congress should be forced to vote not based on favors but based on what's best and what isn't.
But laws will be harder to pass.
Maybe they should be making fewer laws!
Free, that should be on the doorpost of every polling place in the country!
WV "unwoopwe" What many a swinger wishes he/she had done upon hearing the word, "pregnant".
Just think: you could have increased transparency in gov't if your leaders had pushed this plan.
Instead, they just encouraged you to go to public meetings and throw tantrums like children, and some of you did it.
Maybe following the advice of Instapundit, Freedomworks, the other tea party leaders, and so on isn't such a great idea after all.
The new garage mahal line: Obama is right to break any and all promises he made that Bush didn't.
No, I think it's amusing that Althouse never expects anything from Republicans, and expects the world from Democrats. For example, you would never see a post about Bush or any Republican breaking some sort of promise....do you?
It's her right of course, and it's her blog. But I can take a little dig once in a while.
I think it's amusing that Althouse never expects anything from Republicans, and expects the world from Democrats
If it'll make you feel any better, I don't expect anything from Republicans, and I don't expect much from Democrats, either.
Freeman,
"Maybe they should be making fewer laws!"
I totally, completely, and vehemently disagree with the "maybe". The rest of your statement is right on.
@garage:
I think it's amusing that Althouse never expects anything from Republicans, and expects the world from Democrats.
In other words, you don't care what Obama does or doesn't do; only about the people who comment on Obama.
Spoken like a true hack.
Not only make fewer laws, but how about repeal a few thousand? I don't know how any business manages to function these days under such a yoke.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are,"
We know what the choices in the two bills are, but not how the choices between the House bill and the Senate bill will be made. Do we want to see the process in public?
FLS:
We know what the choices in the two bills are, but not how the choices between the House bill and the Senate bill will be made. Do we want to see the process in public?
So you accept the idea of us being ruled by them, rather then holding their feet to the fire. Nice that you finally admit it.
@fls: Do we want to see the process in public?
Obama promised we WOULD see it, and then we could see who voting with The People and who is voting with the kulaks and wreckers (I paraphrase).
When pondering the benefit of watching the compromise process live, consider that 90% of C-Span coverage is Congresscritters' pontificating to an empty room. I never realized that till I toured the House and Senate on a trip to DC. A few folks are working at the podium, then a Congressperson comes in with some visual aids, C-Span fires up a camera, the CP makes a speech to a vacant room, then leaves.
I personally don't want to see the entire process (I neither have the time or ability to really know what is happening): but I do want people who know what to watch for to have that access.
That's the issue.
@fls: So now Obama can break a promise because keeping it would be BORING?
It's obvious why you (and Obama) no longer want to put it on CSPAN. Back when Obama made the promise, he wanted individual Senators and Congressmen to do everything publicly, so that if they opposed the health care reform bill they'd face pressure from angry folks back home.
Now that the bill is unpopular, he (and you) want the opposite, so anonymous Congressmen and Senators can present us with a fait accompli, and everyone has political cover.
in other words, you don't care what Obama does or doesn't do; only about the people who comment on Obama.
No, not in other words. I do care what he does or doesn't do, but I don't give a shit about CSPAN, as I never watch it.
So garage mahal and fls both agree that Obama can break transparency pledges because government is too boring.
The Spendulus Bill was written in secret by Dems and lobbyists. I'd love to see Pelosi grilled on the source of each material item. I.E. every one over $5 Billion.
@fls & garage mahal:
You both willing to disagree with this statement?
We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.
You both willing to say, Obama was wrong and it is not important to know who is working for their constituents and who is working for the insurance companies?
God, you two are pathetic.
I'm afraid that our legislators will be more interested in looking good than doing good.
Apparently Obama can break a promise and the government can enact far-reaching legislation affecting neary every American without any watchdogs monitoring the process?
This isn't about every single American watching C-Span; this is about those who have the time and ability to watch the process be able to do so.
And not all of them are or can be in Washington.
Correct.
I do not give one shit about CSPAN, or the pledge to televise anything on it.
Obama was wrong and it is not important to know who is working for their constituents and who is working for the insurance companies?
That's an easy one. Obama's working for the insurance companies, as is everyone who voted against letting us buy cheap pills from Canada and Mexico.
But was Obama talking about televising the final reconciliation of the House and Senate bills? Or about the six months of debate that led up to where we are now?
We know what the choices in the two bills are,
No we don't. The bills are incomprehensible, convoluted and purposely made to be completely confusing.
I ask you to list 8 things in each bill without going to Google. You can't do it. What's more and even more heinous, neither can our so called legislators
but not how the choices between the House bill and the Senate bill will be made. Do we want to see the process in public?
YES YES YES!!! I want to see in public, in the light of day, in the bright sunlight just exactly how, who and where they are making these laws.
It is our right as citizens and voters to be part of the process, even if that just means being a dumbstruck viewer.
If we are going to be screwed and have our future and children's futures mortgaged for this asinine pipe dream, I want to see the faces of those people who put the shaft to us.
YES......I WANT TO KNOW WHO AND TAKE NAMES.
I'm afraid that our legislators will be more interested in looking good than doing good.
I don't give a flying fuck how they look. If they look good or look like the lying scum that they are.
I want to see WHAT they are doing. I want to see WHO is doing it.
If they want to look good.....they damned well better DO good.
We don't know anything about this bill. But we know every part of it is worse than the Holocaust!
I do not give one shit about CSPAN, or the pledge to televise anything on it.
Great. Keep feeding that cynicism among the electorate.
Then when we wind up with a yahoo clown like Sarah Palin or worse - the man on horseback - in power because of the angry populace don't go around asking, "How did this happen??"
The tax protesters are largely a healthy cause. But they can easily be turned into something bad by a demagogue.
I'd like to keep that from happening, thank you very much.
We don't know anything about this bill. But we know every part of it is worse than the Holocaust!
Well, at least you are half/assed right.
We don't know much about these bills and since the are going to be hammered out in secret and may not look anything like the ones that were crammed through Congress without being read.....we don't know jack about whatever is going to be in the new bill.
Until it is too late.
You should be ashamed about your Holocaust remark.
I'm afraid that our legislators will be more interested in looking good than doing good.
Now why would you think those two things are contradictory rather than correlated?
As a practical matter, if the promise made during the campaign was intended to include the negotiations/reconciliation (whatever term is appropriate) between the two houses of Congress, then it was a silly promise to make. I seem to recall something about separate branches of government, separation of powers, etc back in Civics class (admittedly more than a few years ago, if the Civics title didn't give that away already). I suppose he could threaten to veto any bill that did not follow a process that he found to be acceptable in its creation, but that would seem to be the limit of the powers granted to his office.
Several comments here have referred to the negotiations ongoing as a process of picking which piece from each bill will make it into the final bill. Are they in fact restrained to only include provisions/language from each existing bill, or can they include new provisions that were in neither bill? My impression was that the latter is true, but I may be mistaken.
We used to buy sausages at an Italian pork store in Greenwich Village that was made right in front of us.
Faicco's Pork Store on Bleecker & Cornelia?
former law student said...
Obama was wrong and it is not important to know who is working for their constituents and who is working for the insurance companies?
That's an easy one. Obama's working for the insurance companies, as is everyone who voted against letting us buy cheap pills from Canada and Mexico.
Hate to say this, but the only reason you can buy those "cheap" (not necessarily safe) pills in Canada or Mexico is because they figure if everybody is zoned out, they won't realize they're being neglected to death.
WV "extrucki" A former Teamsters groupie.
That's an easy one. Obama's working for the insurance companies, as is everyone who voted against letting us buy cheap pills from Canada and Mexico.
Technically, wouldn't that be a case of them "working for" (in the interests of) the pharmaceutical companies? The interests of the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies do not always coincide (recall the push by the insurance companies years ago to have many allergy medicines re-classified as over-the-counter medicines).
Why shouldn't they be willing to do it on C-SPAN? They obviously don't give a shit what the public wants or needs. After Nelson, surely there can be no shame.
"2. Was there ever a single instance during the secretive Bush Administration when you called for more transparency? "
Was there one where you trolls wanted less transparency like you apparently do now?
You want your congress to hide what they do from you? Very cool and good argument.
And yes, the photo in the link shows exactly what Obama is doing to his supporters - perfect.
Sausage making is actually quite wonderful. Lean and fatty meats are combined with herbs and spices then deftly packaged. I have some venison sausage in the freezer waiting for a thaw.
Laws cease to inspire respect to the extent that they're written by corrupt assholes, administered by incompetents, and antagonistic to liberty. Sausage has nothing to do with it.
Brian Lamb (CEO) realizes C-Span viewers are catching on, that Congress's typical, everyday, dog and pony show doesn't cut it anymore.
Problem is, the Capital is loaded with back rooms; open one, they move to another.
Better C-Span hide their cameras in DC's high-end restaurants, or bribe Watergate's hookers to bring back the goods.
Actually, I'm wrong, totally wrong. Because we know exactly what's going on, without the so-called transparency.
In fact, the whole process is perfectly transaprent, so much so a child can figure it out.
That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.
I dunno; seems pretty straightforward to me.
Ωbama promised a transparent process, across the board and in the open. Nothing about kicking C-SPAN out at some nebulous point in the process. There's the promise clear as day.
Fls, garage and all the other apologists for reneging on transparency are, indeed, truly pathetic hypocrites.
Garage said: No, not in other words. I do care what he does or doesn't do, but I don't give a shit about CSPAN, as I never watch it.
Oh, man. That statement beggars belief. You claim to care what he does or doesn't do, and when he's called on the mat for being a complete and utter liar, well. He's just talking about C-SPAN and you never watch it so really he gets a pass on that promise. Aren't you the least bit shamed that by writing that drivel, you have revealed a level of intellect that leech would look down on?
Transmitting light but causing sufficient diffusion to prevent perception of distinct images
Translucence may be what Obama prefers to give us, or that gauzy veil of cheeky governance from an internationalized man.
Seriously Obama must be having the same effect upon our liberal brothers that he is having on conservatives. Just listening to his latest double talk that is beginning to seem to be a lie all the time must be demoralising them. As Pelossi remarked. " He made a lot of promises during the campaign", implying that Obama never tells her any truth either. Everyone will be relieved when a man like that just goes away.
Are they in fact restrained to only include provisions/language from each existing bill, or can they include new provisions that were in neither bill? My impression was that the latter is true, but I may be mistaken.
The latter.
However, a modification to Senate rule 28 (dating to the 2007 ethics bill) makes it much, much easier to kill provisions added in conference, effectively forcing the conference to start over again or the House to pass it with the conference-added provisions removed.
Worth repeating:
Henry said:
"Laws cease to inspire respect to the extent that they're written by corrupt assholes, administered by incompetents, and antagonistic to liberty. Sausage has nothing to do with it."
Thanks, Henry
WV: "tuate" Now that is just rude!
There's nothing unpleasant in good sausage.
The same cannot be said of the government.
I don't believe this is about "health care reform", or "transparency", or "broken campaign promises". For the progressive government types it is a faltering step toward the establishment of "healthcare" as another citizen right.
What it actually accomplishes is less important for its proponents than the simple fact it gets done in some form before the Democratic governing majorities are lost this year. Sadly, once this horse is out of the barn, it will be extremely difficult to get him back in his stable. While I hate to think the majority party is that Machavellian, their methods betray their true intentions.
First I was told to just trust the Harvard faculty they wouldn't promote a fool, or make him president of the law review for nothing. I was told to just ignore that he never wrote anything while there, and that his transcripts don't matter. We can trust that he was a smart, and good man because smart, educated people said so.
Then I was told the planet was warming and we would have to make great sacrifices to stop it. Maybe even sacrifice the future of millions around the world to save that world because smart, educated people said so.
Now I'm being told to trust my very health and life to known liars, thieves, opportunists and people proven to have poor character because smart, educated people say so.
Expert journalists tell me that my fellow Americans are fools to not understand the superiority of these fine credentialed fellows and to appreciate where they have taken my country, and where they can now if I just let them do what I cannot begin to understand.
I'm beginning to think I need to find the dumbest rube in the woods, if I want a straight answer.
What the hell are you teaching people in these institutions my honorable faculty. After all the money spent and the resources at your disposal, are these people really better after you get your hands on them than they were when they left their families?
No. No. No.
Obama didn't offer transparency. He offered 3-D. C-SPAN weren't paying attention. That Brian Lamb is old.
Cheers,
Victoria
"Aren't you the least bit shamed that by writing that drivel, you have revealed a level of intellect that leech would look down on?"
Umm..we're talking garage mahal here. He's a scumbag leftist with no principals other than whatever it takes to cram his masters' totalitarian agenda down our throats.
When are you Obama supporters going to learn that criticizing, or in this case, simply HOLDING HIM AT HIS WORD, does not equal supporting Bush in any way, shape, or form.
Ah you expect too much integrity from them. The Left's values are dependent on a lowest common denominator - if they *believe* the other side does it, then its okay for them to do it.
Obama promised Transparency.
He LIED.
The Democrats will kill themselves in order to get tax-payer funded government controlled health care up and running.
It's their glorious socialist golden ring.
must have the preciousssss...
REMARKABLE!
Garage, FLS, and their ilk have actually slinked away!
While they still don't have the honor to admit they're wrong (as is their messiah), this is amazing.
Note for morons and FLS: Bush was WRONG for running up the debt.
See how EASY that was? I know you do, b/c in that scenario Bush was wrong.
Idiots.
wv: cuskie, slavic for "just because."
When one door closes, another door opens.
God notices every sparrow that falls and clothes the lilies of the field.
No, I think it's amusing that Althouse never expects anything from Republicans, and expects the world from Democrats.
Couple points here. 1) Maybe its because Althouse considers herself a Democrat (albeit a conservative/moderate one) and as such, has greater expectations of her party and the promises they make. 2)You conveniently ignore the fact that not just Obama promising transparency but Pelosi said the same thing in 2006 (the most ethical and transparent Congress in history). Therefore, regardless of what Bush and/or the GOP did or didn't do, it's not unreasonable to call the current administration out on this.
Obama ran a spectacular campaign; the hope and change imagry, the slogans, the celebrity endorsements. It was much like seeing the awesome movie trailer which stokes your interest and builds the hype. Now we're 1/4 into the movie and have realized that the best parts, as is usually the case, were already seen in the trailer.
One other thing garage mahal, maybe if the Democratic party would stop promising the world to the electorate, perhaps they wouldn't be asked to deliver it.
Although it's fun to poke them with their own statements about transparency, C-SPAN won't make a difference. If they put the hearings/meetings on TV, they'll just make the deals in the backroom before coming forward into the light. People who work in gov't with sunshine laws know this happens every day.
Nancy Pelosi promised to "drain the swamp". Instead, she swam down to the bottom, plugged the dam and filled the swamp with 10X the muck.
I'm glad C-SPAN's speaking out on this. Unfortunately their leverage is limited.
I think it's time for some civil disobedience on the part of congresspersons who are unhappy with how this is being done. If the current leadership won't let C-SPAN show the proceedings, then they should record the themselves and post them on YouTube. Or at least attempt to do so.
(And a special Sid Meier Appreciation Award goes to Scott M. That quote from Alpha Centauri is one of my favorites.)
Although it's fun to poke them with their own statements about transparency, C-SPAN won't make a difference.
That's not the point. This administration campaigned on a theme of change, on how it wasn't going to be business as usual in Washington DC anymore. I know quite a few people who honestly bought into the hype they was being peddled and are now approaching the level of apathy toward government that I reached almost 20 years ago.
I'll grant you that CSPAN doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but in the same token, he should have not made promises about transparency. As the adage goes, if you can't keep the small promises, how can we expect you to keep the big ones? In that vein, Obama has shown he can't really do much of either.
The Democrats won. They control the POTUS, Senate and House. They have majorities that are unstoppable. They could care less what CNN wants. They still have the Democratic Party News Bureau, consisting of ABC, CBS and NBC. They can be relied upon to convey the Democrats message.
Hope and change, baby.
WV: retel
WV wants me to type it again?
The fact that Obama lied to get elected is really secondary to the problem that so many of us fell for it. He never did anything like what he promised in his previous life or government jobs. If Palin promised it then you might have a case for falling for it, but this guy gave you nothing and you voted for him anyway. If he was selling cars you would have laughed in his face...I hope. As someone once said, the easiest people to fool are the ones who think they are really smart.
REMARKABLE!
Garage, FLS, and their ilk have actually slinked away!
At 3:45a.m.? Ah, yea.
Stephen Snell said...
REMARKABLE!
Garage, FLS, and their ilk have actually slinked away!
...
1/6/10 3:45 AM
"Slinked" away? While I can't speak for garage, I do require some time for sleep and personal hygiene.
I simply asked:
1. Do we really want to see the final knitting process? I have sensed an unwillingness here for Obama to fulfill all his promises (health care reform, closing the prison at Gitmo, etc.), so I'm verifying this is one the commentariat wants kept.
2. Will Congressional grandstanding for the cameras hurt the final knitting process?
3. If we don't see the final knitting process on TV, has Obama really broken his promise? Can he assert that he has substantially performed, for example?
If Michael and Steven are right, we do want to see the final knitting process, because the reconciliation committee can insert new provisions, and not simply choose between the House- and Senate-passed provisions we have been able to review the past two weeks.
So bring on the C-SPAN cameras.
There is no way any Republican administration or congress could get away with such total abandonment of it's promises. Nor should they. But unfortunately we are setting a new standard for dishonest government, and we should all be fighting that together. If this was for national security, then I would be more understanding and at least consider it possible that it's necessary, but this is just politics and slush fund expansion.
Do we really want to see the final knitting process?
YES. Speaking as one who knits and has done so for many years, you can't have a decent finished product unless you follow some sort of knitting pattern.
Just whinging it and knitting in the dark with haphazard needles and done by people who don't have any clue about knitting and/or who don't care about their craft....will create a monstrosity.
We, the people, deserve to know what the pattern is and what the finished product will look like before we are forced to spend a lot of money on expensive yarn. Will it fit? Is it made of yarn that will last or will it fall apart and shrink the first time it is washed. Is the yarn something that might make the person break out in hives. Does the intended recipient of the knitted product even want to wear the fucking thing.
These are all things that knitters need to think about. You would think that Congress might have some of the same sensibilties.
YES YES YES...we want to see this process in all its full awesome unfolding. Awe is not always a good thing. A massive train wreck is also awesome
There is no way any Republican administration or congress could get away with such total abandonment of it's promises.
Dick Cheney wouldn't even disclose how many people were on his staff! Arguably the most secretive administration since Nixon.
"The Democrats had decided to avoid an open debate," says Cantor. 'That strikes the wrong tone with the public, and people are wondering what they are hiding and who may be rewarded behind closed doors. From the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ to the ‘Louisiana Purchase,’ it has been a reprehensible practice to watch."
Noes! How can we blame George Bush?
The democrats are desperate to do so.
Dick Cheney wouldn't even disclose how many people were on his staff! Arguably the most secretive administration since Nixon.
Did Dick Cheney promise to disclose the number of people on his staff?
Do we really want to see the final knitting process? I have sensed an unwillingness here for Obama to fulfill all his promises (health care reform, closing the prison at Gitmo, etc.), so I'm verifying this is one the commentariat wants kept.
I would guess that if a politician makes a promise on the campaign, its of some substance to the electorate otherwise he/she wouldn't bother saying so. Again it's not whether the electorate is going to be glued to CSPAN but rather that the Hope and Change candidate is simply displaying yet another example of politics as usual except its Democrats now instead of the GOP.
Obama is a liar.
"Obama is a liar."
Bush did Bushy things and stuff.
Bushy Bush Bush Bush, Cheney Bush Bush! So, there.
fls: If we don't see the final knitting process on TV, has Obama really broken his promise?
What is it about plain English that escapes some people?
What is it about plain English that escapes some people?
Context. Obama was contrasting the process to generate his plan with Hillary's coming-down-from-Mount-Olympus-with-a-finished-plan-take-it-or-leave-it process.
Remember, Obama and HRC were having a debate? And Obama was trying to differentiate himself from the Queen Bee? And haven't the Obama plan negotiations been a million times more transparent than the Hillcare process?
And haven't the Obama plan negotiations been a million times more transparent than the Hillcare process?
Who gives a rat's ass. Plus that's like comparing one dark and stormy night to another dark and stormy night. Both nights suck and no one wants to be caught out in them.
We want to see the process just like Obambi "promised".
Now if you want to admit that your guy is just nothing more than a bald faced liar who told lies and made promises that he had NO INTENTION of ever keeping just so he could be elected....fine. Go for it.
Admit it. Your guy is a lying piece of shit who would say anything and do anything to get power......and you don't care.
Frankly, I'm surprised the congressional folks don't want it on C-SPAN, it would be a fine opportunity for the public to see the lively bipartisan debate.....
Oh wait..
OK, you're right these details are so tedious like:
-the penalty for not fulfilling your federal mandate
-what new revenue streams will be needed to fund the program
- what other state exemptions might be in the offing.
Boring stuff all, and practically unimportant. What's important is that we will have our BILL!!
(PS. Here's the sausage being made. You can guess where the main ingredient comes from.)
Post a Comment