I wouldn't say "radical kooks," but the consistent changing of the subject gets old.
Posted on 06/25/2005 1:37:26 PM PDT by Pikamax
WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush was steaming Tuesday when he was described as backing away from personal retirement accounts as part of Social Security reform after lunching with Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah.
Bennett, renowned as one of the Senate's best minds, has abandoned personal accounts while trying to win Democratic support for Social Security reform. President Bush intended, he now says, only to encourage Bennett's reform efforts -- encouragement he has given all Republican lawmakers. Bush told aides to contradict news media accounts, based on Bennett's briefing, and affirm that he had not given up on personal accounts.
A footnote: The White House is genuinely supportive of a plan announced Wednesday by several Republican members of Congress. The plan, led by Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, would retain Bush's personal account concept in a different, smaller format.
DALEY VS. DURBIN
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin may never have apologized for his remarks about the Guantanamo detention camp had his fellow Illinois Democrat, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, not described his comments as a "disgrace."
Durbin did not personally call Daley, but his frantic staffers were on the phone to the mayor's office Tuesday asking that Daley tone down or even retract what he said. Daley made clear he would do no such thing.
Durbin's staffers claimed that the senator's expression of regret the previous Friday should suffice, but the mayor insisted on a full-fledged apology.
STEM CELL POLITICS
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wants quick Senate passage this summer of the House-approved embryonic stem cell research bill -- sending it to the White House for President Bush's veto -- rather than the protracted debate desired by many social conservatives.
Sen. Rick Santorum, third ranking in the party hierarchy as the Senate Republican Conference chairman, is a social conservative who supports Frist's move. Santorum faces an uphill fight for re-election against Democratic State Treasurer Bob Casey. As a vigorous foe of human cloning and federally financed embryonic stem cell research, Santorum would like as little Senate debate as possible because the votes are overwhelmingly against him.
Many Republicans, apprehensive about the 2006 election outlook, recall that Democrats suffered at the polls after President Bill Clinton's 1997 veto of a bill banning partial-birth abortion.
NO CLONING BAN
Rep. Jerry Lewis, the new House Appropriations Committee chairman, departed from usual practice, speaking first and voting first against an anti-human cloning amendment to the Labor-HHS money bill. The amendment by Republican Rep. David Weldon of Florida was defeated in committee, 36 to 29.
Lewis, who is rated 83 percent pro-life by National Right to Life, told the committee that approval of the Weldon amendment would violate his goal of ending the practice of appropriators legislating on money bills. He said the substance of the amendment should be considered by House Republican policymakers.
The chairman's intervention persuaded nine other Republicans (out of 36) to oppose the Weldon amendment. On Feb. 27, 2003, all but one of them voted for a bill to prohibit cloning that passed the House overwhelmingly.
CHILDREN'S CRUSADE
In the office of freshman Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, lobbyists burst into tears Tuesday when they heard bad news about prospects for a bill they were pushing. That extraordinary reaction can be explained by the fact that the "lobbyists" were children.
The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation sent groups of children, some as young as age 5, to lobby senators for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The children were in Washington to attend the foundation's Children's Congress. In order for any child to attend, each parent had to promise, in writing, support for the organization's stem cell research position.
The sobbing in DeMint's office came after a lengthy explanation by the senator's aides of why he opposes killing human embryos for research purposes. Another freshman Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, avoided dramatics by coming out of his inner office and giving the children a simple "No."
..though a similar charge with regards to upholding his oath of office received no reaction.
Because no one has accused him of such things except for a few radical kooks.
You're calling most of the folks on FR radical kooks?
hmm. that seems to be going around in d.c. lately. crybaby voinovich busts into tears periodically to make his point and durbin, of course, couldn't seem to control his emotions over his rude statement about our troops.
probably rubbed off on those poor kids.
I wouldn't say "radical kooks," but the consistent changing of the subject gets old.
Looks like Daley is the only Dem with a head on his shoulders. It's a sad day for the Democratic Party when they have to depend on the Daley Machine to set the moral tone.
Good for him. UNLIKE many that think Bush should drop it, find his focus a mistake, I am not one of them. focusing on repairing this system before it crashes is a necessity whether people like it or not. He's right to keep pushing because if he doesn't no one will. And prsonal accounts are absolutely essential to my support and long term fixtures of this problem.
Durbin did not personally call Daley, but his frantic staffers were on the phone to the mayor's office Tuesday asking that Daley tone down or even retract what he said. Daley made clear he would do no such thing. Durbin's staffers claimed that the senator's expression of regret the previous Friday should suffice, but the mayor insisted on a full-fledged apology.
Contradictory from other reports? I tend to believe this one more than the other. Daley has a son in the military.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wants quick Senate passage this summer of the House-approved embryonic stem cell research bill -- sending it to the White House for President Bush's veto -- rather than the protracted debate desired by many social conservatives.
Huh? Did social conservatives (I'm one) want protracted debate? If so, I'm out of the loop. I want it killed quickly with a veto without the House summoning enough votes for passage.
Many Republicans, apprehensive about the 2006 election outlook, recall that Democrats suffered at the polls after President Bill Clinton's 1997 veto of a bill banning partial-birth abortion.
I don't understand this? Republicans are afraid a veto on a social issue will cost them elections? Clinton veto'd protection of Life. Bush would put a veto to a measure that ends life. Not quite the same.
In the office of freshman Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, lobbyists burst into tears Tuesday when they heard bad news about prospects for a bill they were pushing. That extraordinary reaction can be explained by the fact that the "lobbyists" were children.
I was going to say were Voinovich and Durbin there.
That is just wrong. Using children to lobby. How low can they go.
That's why those leftist weenies are referred to a "girlie men"....
They were all emasculated ---- decades ago..
Semper Fi
High, Jack!
Consider what Bush gets mad at in the context of what he doesn't get mad at.
Open border in the age of nuclear terrorism, while the nation is at war - no problem. Open, continuous treason on the Senate floor - no problem. Creating generations of national debt to fund unconstitutional programs? No problem. The Supreme Court abolishing property rights? Nothing worth a comment.
But when it comes to his dead plan for giving the country a slight alteration of its biggest Ponzi scheme, "steaming".
NO we're calling you a "radical kook".
If you lost a son or a daughter and came here to report that sad news, it would be out of line for me to ask you what you thought of Game 7 of the NBA Finals on that thread, wouldn't it?
Are you saying that I'm spoiling your enjoyment of this article by pointing out some of the responsibilities of the office he's chosen to ignore in order to spend time on this? As if they were as unrelated topics as the death of a loved one and an NBA game?
No more so than your post in #15 where you stated, "I'm being taxed worse than a medieval serf, whose status was that of a slave." That was dramatic, my friend, especially coming from my vantage point.
Are you saying that I'm spoiling your enjoyment of this article by pointing out some of the responsibilities of the office he's chosen to ignore in order to spend time on this?
No, I am not.
As if they were as unrelated topics as the death of a loved one and an NBA game?
But that's exactly the point! This was about Bush's Social Security plan. Whether or not you or I like Social Security, it is rushing towards insolvency. That's a fact. Although I find myself in agreement with you on these other subjects, they were out of place here.
Just like my question about an NBA game at your son's or daughter's funeral.
Stating a simple historical fact is only dramatic because it's true. To someone who already knew this particular fact it would not have seemed dramatic at all.
This change won't make the system solvent, not even close. The system has to be done away with. It's unconstitutional, and poorly managed as well. All its assets have been stolen already by the legislature.
"... the mayor insisted on a full-fledged apology."
Hmmmm?? Too bad Daley didn't get the apology he demanded!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.