View Full Version : Senate OK's 9/11 Panel Reforms...
efuseakay
10-07-2004, 03:19 AM
The article is here... read for yourself... :)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134648,00.html
The bill passed with a 96-2 vote... and guess who didn't go to work yesterday? (October 6, when this bill went up for a vote)...
Yes, you guessed it... see for yourselves:
Look who is AWOL! (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00199#position)
Did they strip the stiffer penalties for illegal aliens out of it as the White House is insisting they do? David Dreier is trying to find a way to do this in the House version without getting his tit in the wringer with his constituency.
Can I ask a dumb question? Why do we need a new department, more government in order to facilitate the ones we have already working together and sharing information? Why can't this be done with the people and agencies we already have? Why can't we put the funds this is going to cost, which I'm assuming is HUGE, into better equipment and systems that work?
jimeez
10-07-2004, 01:21 PM
Bush applauded the vote. In a statement, he also called on the House to follow suit quickly with its own legislation, without endorsing one version over the other.
"This legislation is another important step forward as we do everything in our power to defeat the terrorist enemy and protect the American people," Bush said of the Senate bill.
Kind of funny if you think about it. Bush was totally against the 9/11 commisiion from the very beginning. They had to fight every step of the way to even form the commission. Now he's applauding their reforms.
Yes, you guessed it... see for yourselves:
Look who is AWOL! (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00199#position)
The man's on the friggin campaign trail for Christ's sake! Do you think if the tables were turned and Bush was the Senator; do you think he'd return to Washington for the vote?
Plunge
10-07-2004, 01:38 PM
The man's on the friggin campaign trail for Christ's sake! Do you think if the tables were turned and Bush was the Senator; do you think he'd return to Washington for the vote?
He should have resigned his senate seat when he decided to run so the people from his state could have proper representation.
joseftu
10-07-2004, 02:30 PM
Proper representation? Making the vote 97-2 instead of 96-2? Yes, that would have been a critically important act.
Plunge
10-07-2004, 03:01 PM
Proper representation? Making the vote 97-2 instead of 96-2? Yes, that would have been a critically important act.
Oh PLEASE Joe, you know what I mean. He isn't representing his state, he hasn't been representing his state. He has missed almost every vote, every committee meeting, etc. He should have resigned his senate seat when he decided to run for the presidency.
Senator Dole certainly understood that and respected his constituents enough to do so.
joseftu
10-07-2004, 03:19 PM
Plunge, according to his detractors (I'm thinking of jfcjrus) he's <b>never</b> done a good job of representing his state--yet how many times has he been re-elected?
According to his supporters, he's been doing a fine job all along, and in campaigning for president, he's actually making a step that will ultimately benefit them (and all Americans) far more than any committee meeting or vote.
So even if it's true that he's missed every vote and every committee meeting (I can't vouch for the accuracy of that claim), it's up to his constituents, not us, to judge him for that. He'll be president in 2005, so it won't come up, but if he were to stand for re-election to the Senate, I'll bet that his constituents would be quite willing to express their opinion of the way he's represented them, by making him their senator again.
ravital
10-07-2004, 06:10 PM
He'll be president in 2005, so it won't come up, but if he were to stand for re-election to the Senate, I'll bet that his constituents would be quite willing to express their opinion of the way he's represented them, by making him their senator again. Since you speak French (or have claimed to, recently :cool: ), please allow me to remind you of an old French Saying: Never sell the bear's fur before you've killed it.
As to the rest, you're not his constituent, neither am I, but he's not "Ambassador of Massachusetts in the foreign Capital Washington D.C." - he's a U.S. senator, his decisions and votes affect all of us, and while only those fortunate (?) enough to live in (the People's Republic of) Massachusetts are allowed to vote for him for that office, all of us have a say about his performance.
Other than that, it's a non-issue.
Bestest regards :)
efuseakay
10-08-2004, 02:59 AM
Proper representation? Making the vote 97-2 instead of 96-2? Yes, that would have been a critically important act.
You mean 96-3...
Now show me... where is the representation?
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&fullvotes=1
If you or I were absent from our jobs this much, we would have been fired long ago. If he cannot perform his duties as US Senator, he should resign.
joseftu
10-08-2004, 08:16 AM
If you or I were absent from our jobs this much, we would have been fired long ago. If he cannot perform his duties as US Senator, he should resign.He's had a bad attendance record (36%) only during the time that he's been campaigning, efuseakay. In the years that he was in the Senate before this past year, his attendance record never dropped below 95% (and that was the year that his father died).
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103
And, as I said, he could reasonably argue that during the past year's time, by campaigning for president, he's doing a job which will ultimately benefit his constitutents (and all Americans) quite a lot more.
Honestly, I know there's plenty to criticize Kerry about, but I think this issue is driven by a belief that he shouldn't have run for President at all. You're entitled to that belief, but it's not one that most Americans share (as will be confirmed in a few weeks).
efuseakay
10-09-2004, 08:42 AM
He's had a bad attendance record (36%) only during the time that he's been campaigning, efuseakay. In the years that he was in the Senate before this past year, his attendance record never dropped below 95% (and that was the year that his father died).
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103
And, as I said, he could reasonably argue that during the past year's time, by campaigning for president, he's doing a job which will ultimately benefit his constitutents (and all Americans) quite a lot more.
Honestly, I know there's plenty to criticize Kerry about, but I think this issue is driven by a belief that he shouldn't have run for President at all. You're entitled to that belief, but it's not one that most Americans share (as will be confirmed in a few weeks).
It doesn't matter... If he cannot commit to his duties as Senator, regardless if he is campaigning or not (what an excuse), he should resign so somebody else can take his spot who can actually do the job.
And what is he going to do after he loses the election? Go back to work at his convenience? He should pay back the tax payers for all the days he missed. rofl