From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Dems cave, reach "agreement" to avoid nuclear meltdown in the Senate

May 23, 2005 9:50 PM

According to the AP: "Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers."

Here's the full text.

More from the archive in Legislation.

Dems cave, reach "agreement" to avoid nuclear meltdown in the Senate (05.23.2005)

Next Entry: Taking on a Giant (06.01.2005)
Previous Entry: The funniest online video ever (05.23.2005)

Read the 51 comments.



Mon May 23 2005 10:15 PM

Sponge Bob:

Nuclear Option will be enacted later this summer.

Tue May 24 2005 9:26 AM


The Dems didn't cave. They 1) still have the fillibuster and 2) have to accept only 3 radical judges instead of 5. Without the deal, all 5 would have been approved. Frist and Dobson did not prevail. At best, it's a tie but I think the Dems won and the Repubs blinked.

Tue May 24 2005 10:30 AM

Sponge Bob:

Reid also did damage to his credibility by caving on judges that he previously called radical and unacceptable. He left no doubt that this was a political issue, and justified the label "obstructionist". He also left himself wide open to be hammered mercilessly when the Dems do filibuster the next judge.

I do agree with Iva, the Rhinos led the charge and Fisk ran away like crying bitch.

Tue May 24 2005 11:10 AM


No one seems content on either side with the "deal." I think the only thing that happened was that 3 judges will get a vote. The rest is all BS.

Tue May 24 2005 2:54 PM


Statement from Gov. Dean:

"Last night's agreement is a win for America. We loosened the grip of the radical right wing, but the real test of this agreement will come when we see if the President consults Democrats on future judicial nominees.

"Republicans were arrogantly demanding a power that no President has ever had and placing our fundamental rights as Americans — free speech, civil rights, clean air and water, and voting rights - on the chopping block for short-term political gain. But because Democrats held fast, the Republicans attempt to clear the way for an extremist Supreme Court nominee was blocked and 200 years of Senate rules have been preserved.

"Unfortunately, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owens will likely be confirmed. But a fundamental tenet of our democracy was protected. The bottom-line is that the 48 percent of us who did not vote for President Bush still have a voice in our government, and Senator Frist and the radical right-wing extremists were prevented from obtaining absolute power.

"Even though this battle appears to be over, for now, Democrats in both houses of Congress will continue to fight for up or down votes on the priorities of the American people: national security, retirement security, affordable health care, and efforts to jumpstart our economy."

Tue May 24 2005 3:23 PM


Interesting. Both Republicans and Democrats are treating this as a victory for Democrats.

James Dobson said, "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats...The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed."

Tue May 24 2005 3:27 PM

Sponge Bob:

"Even though this battle appears to be over, for now, Democrats in both houses of Congress will continue to fight for up or down votes on the priorities of the American people: national security, retirement security, affordable health care, and efforts to jumpstart our economy."

Nice spin, he seems to have forgotten it was the democrat's #1 priority to PREVENT up and down votes, and they achieved it. It was a big win for the democrats - they where going to lose their "filibuster" tool and have 4 of the 5 appointees confirmed. Now they only have three and they kept the 200+ year filibuster argument (actually only 6 years but numbers mean little them) around to delay the Supreme Court nominee that is expected later this year. It was a huge win for the democrats.

Tue May 24 2005 3:42 PM


Dean's wording is a jiu-jitsu on the Republican talking point regarding up-or-down votes. Very clever, if you ask me. From now on, when good, popular legislation is stalled by the Republicans in committee, we should call for an up-or-down vote on the issue.

Tue May 24 2005 9:15 PM


What I'm talking about is when the Republicans will say they are for some popular legislation, but then they bottle it up in committee, because they aren't really for it. We want an up-or-down vote on those issues, because it will force them to choose whether to side with us, or to go on the record as voting against the wishes of the American people.

This is actually politics of the noblest sort. It would put pressure on Republicans to be more honest. Every lie needs to be challenged in some fashion.

Tue May 24 2005 9:25 PM


Those principled Dems...last week Judges Brown, Owen, and Pryor were menaces to society...pretty much foaming-at-the-mouth radicals.
This week?
Oh, well....

Wed May 25 2005 8:28 AM


Obviously, you wouldn't know strategy unless it clocked you in the nose.

Wed May 25 2005 11:01 AM

Sponge Bob:

"Obviously, you wouldn't know strategy unless it clocked you in the nose"

Agreed. Honesty, integrity or the good of the country or the people have nothing to do with it.

Wed May 25 2005 11:46 AM

Tom from Madison:

I have great respect for McCain, Dorgin and the bipartisan Senators who brokered the deal to avoid the filibuster rules showdown.

What I respect most is their idea that our form of government is based on HONEST DISAGREEMENT about what's best for the people. We should not be making decisions based on the theocratic pronouncements of the religious right.

Honorable politicians like my Senator, Russ Feingold, are doing their best to represent everyday people. He opposed Owen because of her knee-jerk support of corporations over individuals. Whether you agree or disagree, that position doesn't make him good or evil.

...That's the beauty of having a secular government!

Wed May 25 2005 5:20 PM


I also have respect for Senator McCain’s military service BUT he has curtailed freedom of speech (campaign reform). McCain is also a MIDDLE of the ROADER, do you know what happens to you in the middle of the road, you get run over.

14 Senators recently “hijacked” the Senate because they were afraid to vote either way on court nominees, they were afraid to take a stand FOR or AGAINST that is not the way government should function.

Thu May 26 2005 8:05 AM

Sponge Bob:

From the Spoon's Blog
May 24, 2005
The Filibuster Deal for Dummies
A burglar breaks into your house and steals $500.

Outraged, you declare, "I am going to put new locks on the doors, install an alarm, and sue that burglar to get my money back!"

The burglar, who happens to be your next door neighbor, asks, "Don't you think that's a little extreme?"

You hesitate, "Well... uh... I don't know...."

The burglar proposes: "How about this? I'll give you back $300. You promise not to change the locks or install an alarm, and don't go to the cops with this. In return, I promise that I won't break into your house and steal from you anymore unless I really, really need the money."

If that sounds like a good deal to you, you may be qualified to be a Republican member of the Senate.

Fri May 27 2005 3:16 PM

Tom from Madison:

Civics lessons for Neo-cons:

1) The minority can and should slow down the appointment process for judges and other admin appointess, like UN ambassador, so that everyone has a chance to scrutinize the background of the nominees. This is NOT obstructionist. It's full disclosure and avoids an ill-advised rush to judgment. That's got to be good for EVERYONE in a democracy!

Certainly this fine crop of appointeess could stand up to a few additional weeks of scrutiny. We all deserve to see who is getting a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

2) It is hypocritical for the a Republican US administration to be preaching INLCUSION of the Sunni minority in Iraq, while simultaneously advocating the EXCLUSION of the elected Democratic minority at home. How about some consistency here!

Fri May 27 2005 6:04 PM

Sponge Bob:

Civics lesson for the democrats - you can't call it a republic or a democracy if the minority rules and voting is not allowed.

Tue May 31 2005 10:03 AM

Dave E.:

Sponge Bob is right. Democrats have way too much power. They are power hungry, and control much too much of the government. Can you believe they actually hold seats in the Senate and the House?

They hate our freedoms and they hate America. All who oppose us are no different. Freedom haters.

Lets burn them!

Tue May 31 2005 12:00 PM

Squidward Tentacles:

Dave E is right. Republicans have way too much power. They are power hungry, and control much too much of the government. Can you believe they actually hold a majority of seats in the Senate and the House? They have seized power in 30 states? They expect to actually get to vote on items of national importance - fascist pigs.

They hate our freedoms and they hate America. All who oppose us are no different. They are Nazis just waiting to pull out the Swastika. Freedom haters.

Tue May 31 2005 12:17 PM

Tom from Madison:

Sp Bob said:

"Civics lesson for the democrats - you can't call it a republic or a democracy if the minority rules and voting is not allowed."

I agree, but it applies more to Republicans-- especially if:
1) by the MINORITY" he means wealthy white corporate interests and
2) by "voting is not allowed" he is referring to voters denied their franchise in Florida and Ohio in the 2004 Election."

Interesting that REPUBLICAN SENATOR Sam Brownback from Kansas is threatening to filibuster Stem Cell Research. I agree he has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO THIS. Yet he would deny Democrats the same right when it comes to debating appointees.

Any hypocracy here?

Tue May 31 2005 1:04 PM

Sponge Bob:

1) by the MINORITY he means wealthy white corporate interests = sounds liks the democrat party to me.

2. Voting not allowed in Florida, Sounds like the democrats again - remember the military vote they took such great pains to suppress?

Don't worry about Senator Sam Brownback - you'll be calling him "Mr President" in 4 years.

Tue May 31 2005 2:12 PM

Tom from Madison:

Floridians are FINALLY catching up to what we already know in Madison, Wisconsin. There needs to be a paper trail left when counting votes. Optical scanners of paper documents are the way to go.
See the source below.

Had these been in use in 2000, Gore would have been President.

"Don't worry about Senator Sam Brownback - you'll be calling him "Mr President" in 4 years."

So you're suggesting that Brownback might become head honcho of his Rotary chapter? Doesn't the fact that Brownback is a flip-flopper make you suspect there might be some termites in his presidential timber?

It's much more likely that Wisconsin's Russ Feingold will be President. He's enough of a maverick to counter the knee-jerk liberal hatred spread by neo-con bigots. He's also a man of integrity and ideas. He'd bring Truman-like sensibilities to the White House.

America needs a President who will accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions. It has become obvious that Bush and his drone-squad don't know how to be accountable and can't resist the urge to further fatten themselves at the public trough.

Tue May 31 2005 3:41 PM

Sponge Bob:

Feingold, that guy who wants it to be illegal for Americans to discuss politics unless it's being spoon fed from a MSM? The campaign finance reformer fined $9,000 by the Federal Elections Commission for campaign finance violations?

The only peice of legislation connected to his name is one of the biggest mistakes made in the past ten years.

About the only thing he brings is a Mistress and he's NOT HOWARD DEAN. Do you one better, nominate him for president and McCain for VP and see how far the libs make it this time.

Gore would have been president for until 2004 had he just won his home state, something even Mondale accomplished during his ass kicking. Dispite succesfully suppressing the votes of the military he still lost.

Tue May 31 2005 4:13 PM

Tom from Madison:


don't take this personally, but you're telling whoppers!

Feingold is a champion of free speech and a practitioner of it. That makes a lot of neo-cons nervous. That's a VERY GOOD THING.

Feingold brings broad-based appeal. One major quality he brings is GENUINENESS. He's a real guy. Contrast that to the President. He decided to BECOME A TEXAN to shed his spoiled rich kid background. If you scratch George Bush's exterior, you find a wealthy New England Aristocrat underneath.

I don't have a problem with what he is. However, he keeps pretending he's something else. He goes to a fake ranch to hang out with other vicarious thrll seeking military wannabees. It's quite absurd to see all the neo-cons who never served or minimally served passing themselves off as friends of the average enlisted man and woman. It is to laugh!

All of this would simply be funny if we weren't killing lots of innocent people and plundering the wealth of the country.

Russ Feingold, on the other hand, is a real Wisconsinite--born and bred. What you see is what you get. It would be refreshing to elect a president who is a real guy for a change. Like I said before, he brings Harry Truman appeal to the office. That beats the hell out of the propaganda machine we have now!

Wed Jun 1 2005 11:01 AM

Sponge Bob:

Nice deflection Tom, ever read the McCain Feingold bill? The RESTRICTIONS imposed on free speech are chilling. His appeal is to big MSM who desire to control the flow of information to the "unwashed masses". How about that fine from the FEC. How’s that work into the image of the election "reformer"?

I do notice you promote Russ briefly in only the most VAGUE terms, then repeat the democrat mantra on Bush. I thought the democrats learned that running on the "We ain't Bush" platform will only lead to defeat. You actually need to push "Feingold isn't Dean", that message might go farther.

Bragging up the fact he's born in Wisonson? How sad is that?

Wed Jun 1 2005 11:57 AM

Tom from Madison:

Nice dismissive comments and failure to acknowledge the mess the country is in right now! Our current course is: War without end, financed by the National Debt. It is against this background that the Democrats will run.

I agree that McCain-Feingold hasn't reformed campaign financing. However viewing it as any kind of restraint of free speech is simply shameless corporatism at its worst. Free speech is an important right of individuals, not corporations. Poor people deserve to have a voice in elections. Dems can stand for giving them a voice. Republicans won't do that.

Blaming Bush is not sufficient, but is necessary to understand the current situation because he caused it! In order to get OUT OF THIS MESS, we're all going to need to deal with the world of NO ACCOUNTABILITY created by W. Obviously Dems need to offer a brighter vision, but they can certainly begin by underlining the need to replace the deranged current head of the ship of state.

Democrats like Feingold stand for transparency. That means energy policy that is made out in the open for all to see.

Speaking of Energy policy there is some plain foolishness that the Republicans have enacted. E.g. giving taxbreaks to businesses who bought vehicles with a gross weight over 3 tons is looking like a VERY BAD IDEA if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Dems can bring a defense policy and a foreign relations policy made based on achieving a lasting peace with our neighbors. Bush gave us an undisclosed pre-determined plan to go to war with Iraq.

The Plan for a new American Century is currently being implemented without it ever being discussed in a public forum. The issue is not just WHAT IS HAPPENING, BUT HOW IT'S HAPPENING. Accountability and Transparency in government are huge issues.

Bush and the Republicans avoid public discourse at every turn. Feingold would bring that back. Secrecy is NOT the American way. Yet we have more of it now than we have ever had in our history. It's time for a rebirth of transparency. Republicans have already proved they don't care about process. It's time to get away from the world of loyalty oaths and back to honest government. a lot of conservatives used to be allowed to have the same thoughts.

Wed Jun 1 2005 4:42 PM

Tom from Madison:


Wed Jun 1 2005 4:48 PM

Sponge Bob:

Still can't think of anything good to say about Russ? The "Russ ain't W" slogan has already worn thin. The lack of ideas and leadership from the democrat party is embarrassing.

At least he won’t be burdened by a Theresa Heinz like wife, but then the stories that can be told by 2 ex-wives might sink his campaign before the first primary.

Wed Jun 1 2005 5:19 PM

Sponge Bob:

In case you didn't know the classification of 6000#+ vehicles as equipment has been on the books for over 15 years, hardly a Bush or Republican invention - passed by the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

"Free speech is an important right of individuals, not corporations. Poor people deserve to have a voice in elections. Dems can stand for giving them a voice. Republicans won't do that."

McCain Feingold is about who will control the flow of information to the public; with the MSM and politicians having a total lock on published and broadcast speech in America.

It is about a television/radio blackout of truth, issues amd opinions of private individual who pool their power by choosing to belong to organizations which give them the power to reach millions of voters through paid advertising.

"The governor needs to receive advice from time to time in closed session. As every person in government knows, sometimes you get more open discussion when it's not public," Howard Dean, DNC president. Hardly supports your claim of a "transparent" energy policy that the democrats will provide.

Wed Jun 1 2005 5:50 PM

Dave E.:

We're pretty much at rock bottom right now. Nowhere to go but up.

The Bush energy policy was essentially the Enron-led, energy industry policy for America. In other words, we locked the kid in the candy store. See, Enron was largely responsible for the CA energy crisis, reaping billions in price manipulation. To this day, the state pays $7800 per minute in interest alone for its bailout loans. Thanks to Kenny always were W's favorite. Good to know our national energy policy was written by the same book-cooking weasels.

And that, my little dittohead friends, is why transparency is so important. This is not a liberal/conservative issue - no matter how much you stomp your feet or how loud you scream "you just hate Bush!" (I think that's established...)

Seriously. How naive does one have to be to think there can only possibly be two positions to any issue, no matter its complexity? This, I suspect, is because 22 percent of Americans get their news from talk radio (gallup '02). You'd think the average schlub driving to his 9 to 5 would know these are just commentators spinning news and condemning those "evil liberals" for how they hate America sooo much. Nope. Witnessing the amount of sheer willpower expended in remaining in the narrow lock-step of new conservatism - even though the Bush Admin are serial violaters of traditional conservative principles - I'm led to believe the Pavlovian masses are pretty hard-core dumbed down at this point. Their Prez is officially a king; untethered by the realities of the fallible human, or, more importantly, the inherent fallibility of government.

You should be skeptical of your government, not it's brainless fucking cheerleader.

"My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death." - Mark Twain

And that, my little dittohead friends, is where my loyalty rests.

Thu Jun 2 2005 12:44 AM


What's a ditto head?

Thu Jun 2 2005 8:28 AM

Tom from Madison:

"Ditto Head" refers to followers of Rush Limbaugh's positions.

Originally, callers to Rush's show could immediately indicate their agreement with Rush's philosophy and political stands by simply saying "Dittos". Ergo Rush's followers became referred to as Ditto Heads.

Thu Jun 2 2005 8:54 AM

Tom from Madison:

Sponge Bob:

After my facts have corrected your propaganda so many times before, you should quit questioning my research! I'm amazed at how many neo-cons simply try to get away with LIEING! Guess what, facts matter! Let me illustrate.

The legislation I'm referring to was passed is the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, not 15 years ago! It provided ADDITIONAL deductions and accelerated depreciation on vehicles over 6000 pounds. This came on top of an already existing loophole.


Bottom-line: the Bush administration helped pump up sales of the largest SUVs immediately before the price of gas shot up. BAD IDEA!

Why do Bushies defend these inane policies? Are they being paid off, or is it simple pig-headedness?

Thu Jun 2 2005 9:11 AM

Sponge Bob:

Vehicles with GVWR rating in excess of 6000 pounds have been classified as "Equipment" for federal tax purposes since the early 1990s if not earlier. I know this because I have made business decisions based on this classification for years. This rating is the reason I've owned 27 Ford F350s instead of Ford F250s. Do a little more reasearch and add a little "Real World Experience".

By the way, post a link that works.

Thu Jun 2 2005 10:31 AM

Sponge Bob:

Go to page 15 of this report:

Vehicles with GVWR exceeding 6000 pounds have received special tax status since 1987 and before. Ever hear of section 179 depreciation?

Thu Jun 2 2005 12:47 PM

Tom from Madison:


Don't trip over yourself backing up!

Yes there already was a loophole in the tax structure for vehicles over 6000 lbs. TWO BUSH TAX-CUTTING STIMULUS PACKAGES INCREASED IT--one in 2002, another in 2003!

I repeat, the net result was to get many small businesses buying HUMMERS and other large vehicles due to even greater allowable depreciation than prior to this legislation.

I repeat, this was a VERY BAD IDEA at a time when we should be encouraging energy efficiency!

Fri Jun 3 2005 1:43 PM

Sponge Bob:

If it was such a bad idea why didn't the Democrats propose extendeding bonus depreciation to all vehicles? Or add an amendment that that raises the weight class? Or why did they propose the 6000# classification in the first place back in the 80s?

If you understood taxes you would realize something else - all the classification does is delay the tax. You get a big deduction in the year of purchase with smaller deductions coming in the following years. I actually passed up on the using bonus depreciation the past three years because I anticipate the tax rate going UP, with no debt the cash in the bank is earning less (some times way less) then 2%, I expect the tax increases in later years to more then wipe out any short term savings.

If Bush is for high fuel consumption why did it take a Republican to institute $2000 and $4000 tax CREDITS for buy high efficiency cars? Why did this not occure under Clinton with a democrat president, Senate and House? Using your logic they must have a big problem with people using less fossil fuel and have no energy plan. Back up Hell, I'm running over you ass with the weak shit you're putting up.

Fri Jun 3 2005 2:46 PM

Tom from Madison:

Bob said:
"If it was such a bad idea why didn't the Democrats propose extendeding bonus depreciation to all vehicles?"

We had a HUGE deficit in 2002 & 2003, and still do.

We're fighting a misguided war. War costs money--lots of it. We can't afford to cut taxes while fighting a war. It's wrong to be running up a debt to hand to future generations.

The right thing to do is to close all loopholes and raise revenue from federal government tax collections if we are going to fight a war. It's wrong and irresponsible to further subsidize gas-guzzling vehicles.

CAFE [corporate avg fuel economy] standards were effective in raising fuel economy. The problem is Bush abandoned raising CAFE standards in favor of doling out tax cuts--bad idea. We need to raise standards on the ENTIRE FLEET of vehicles, not just provide tax incentives for SOME. Clinton was right not to use Bush's approach. Had we stuck to raising CAFE standards, we'd be much more fuel efficient overall than we are now AND we'd be selling more hybrids.

Sen. Diane Feinstein proposed raising CAFE standards only a few weeks ago. Republicans defeated the measure -- see below.

Whatever stimulus the auto industry got from the spike in BIG SUV sales is now a backfiring on the whole economy as the cost of doing business is higher than it would otherwise be due to our collective waste of fuel. Thanks W!

Once again, Bush is screwing America! So far he's blown a deficit, started a needless war, made enemies with most of the world, encouraged gas-guzzling, raised the price of gas, and helped eliminate voting machine verifiability. What a guy!!!

Fri Jun 3 2005 11:55 PM

Sponge Bob:

Great deflection Tom, weakly address the limitation of the depreciation but don't address why democrats didn't raise the weight classification, or why democrats even started giving SUVs favored depreciation status to begin with (hey, doesn’t John Kerry have a couple of Suburban?). Or why Bush is the one that initiated tax credits on high efficiency cars. Then you wonder off in la la land mumbling "BUSH LIED”, surprised you didn't throw "HALIBURTON" onto the pile too.

Mon Jun 6 2005 9:50 AM

Tom from Madison:


I'm not deflecting or weakly addressing the issue. I'm pointing out the forest, you keep wanting to talk about ONE TREE.

BIG POINT: we need to reduce aggregate consumption of fossil fuel by minimizing the US consumption of gasoline.

As I stated earlier the BEST way to do that is by raising CAFE standards. Providing tax breaks for only some fuel efficient cars whlile accelerating depreciation on fuel inefficient vehiclss is not the way to go. The Bush tax/energy policy is to simply pander to specific interests by offering everybody a tax break. When you add up all the pieces, it amounts to a convoluted mess and further complication of the tax code--something he promised to simplify. He has also further increased the federal deficit in the process.

I don't have a problem with anybody driving a suburban. I find fault with the federal government giving accelerated depreciation to businesses that use large vehicles.

By the way, I'm not mumbling about Bush lieing. I'm proclaiming it loudly since you and your neo-con buddies simply won't deal with it. Rich corporate oil interests are stealing public money. I think more people should know about it and companies should be held accountable. It's the AMERICAN WAY!

It's obvious that Bush has a problem with the truth and with transparency in government. Why do conservatives give allow their own guy to play so fast and loose with the truth?

Yes, Bush's conflicts of interest include your favorite company to avoid discussing [Haliburton & subsidiaries such as KBR]. His insistence on secretly making energy policy is out of place in America.

My question to the right remains: Why don't you insist on having a real, substantive energy policy debate OUT IN THE OPEN?

Mon Jun 6 2005 10:27 AM

Sponge Bob:

So the fact that the democrats started giving SUVs a special tax break makes it Bush's fault? And Bush giving high efficiency cars a tax credit is bad? You logic is staggering to say the least.

Mon Jun 6 2005 11:04 AM

Tom from Madison:

Sp Bob:

You need to turn your fact filter off. Critical information is never making to your brain!

I'll give it to you in nice talking points:

1) , Bush greatly increased Clinton's ill-advised tax-break for SUVs-- BAD!
2) Cutting taxes in time of a WAR--BAD! Wars are won based on national sacrifice. If a war is to truly be a priority, everyone, RICH AND POOR, needs to be involved in a shared sacrifice.
3) Trying to increase overall fuel economy of US vehicles by giving tax breaks on some -- not effective.
4) Bush's actions don't add up to any energy 'policy' at all.

Even a neo-con shoul be able to follow..

Mon Jun 6 2005 4:00 PM

Sponge Bob:

And the democrat energy plan is?

Mon Jun 6 2005 6:27 PM

Tom from Madison:


Thanks for an intelligent queston.

I don't speak for the Dems, but some key points are:
1) Raise CAFE standards on all vehicles.
2) Affirm the Kyoto accords
3) Make a national priority of determining if and how technology can reasonably be used to develop enironmentally sound nuclear energy.
4) Do the same for biomass, wind, solar, hydrogen-based and other non-fossil fuel-based energy sources.
5) Use the strategic petroleum reserve wisely and in the national interest to mitigate the effects of rising crude oil prices.

Just HAVING a national dialog would be a HUGE STEP FORWARD. The Bush way of doing business is to hatch a secret plan and ram it down the country's throat. US Energy 'Policy' is being driven by right-wing ideology, not pragmatism.

I have much more faith in scientists to come up with technological solutions to Energy problems and in the people's ability to make intelligent choices, if they are INFORMED, than I do in Bush's elite oil cronies.

Tue Jun 7 2005 11:03 AM

Sponge Bob:

Those are on your personal agenda. They seem to conflict with the official position that the little democrat goose steppers in Washington are following.

Tue Jun 7 2005 2:41 PM

Tom from Madison:


You might notice that Kerry, Dean, and Hilary Clinton favor many of the same positions. Democrats haven't made their case to the people very well for various reasons including:
1) they are disorganized;
2) THE REPUBLICANS are dominated by ideologs that are not allowing much free debate of the issues.

Your repeated references to Democrats as Nazis is EXACTLY WRONG. Bush is acting much more the fascist than any Democrat is. He is following the Nazi recipe of religion, propaganda, military appeal,, gay bashing, and general anti-intellectualism.

Republicans are manufacturing news and in some cases just plain lieing their a$$es off. Melman's dismissal of the Downing St memo on Meet the Press as "discredited by everyone who looked at it" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is a deliberate lie and the worst type of propaganda.

More than anything, in this country, we need policy based on truth.

Tue Jun 7 2005 5:12 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

"More than anything, in this country, we need policy based on truth."


Tue Jun 7 2005 6:40 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

A wonderful peace by a real American.

Wed Jun 8 2005 12:36 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Look at how hard the US tried to succesfully prevent people from actually verifying whether Saddam had WMD before the war started.

And this freak on a leash is going to be your ambassador to the UN?

Wed Jun 8 2005 1:13 PM

Tom from Madison:

Mike is right.

It's a sad day for America when we reward the biggest a$$ kisser we can find. Bolton is a very poor example of a human being and absolutely unaccomplished as a diplomat.

Thu Jun 16 2005 4:23 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart