View Poll Results: New majorities in House and Senate... how they rate?

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Republican, approve of Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Republican, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    24 29.63%
  • Republican, undecided about Congress/Senate

    1 1.23%
  • Democrat, approve of Congress/Senate

    8 9.88%
  • Democrat, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    6 7.41%
  • Democrat, undecided about Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Independent/Other, approve Congress/Senate

    2 2.47%
  • Independent/other, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    27 33.33%
  • Independent/Other, undecided about Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Other (Will explain in great lengths in the thread)

    4 4.94%
Page 4 of 57 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 854
  1. #46
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Corruptfornia
    Posts
    3,786

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    What happened to the openness that was promised ?
    http://www.yahoo.com/s/595927

    WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness
    regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving
    in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming
    budget
    year.

    Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in
    January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for
    specific projects and contracts for their states — in documents that
    accompany spending bills.

    Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in
    legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order
    by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills
    free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively
    challenge them.
    Just goes to show that there isn't really any difference between the
    two parties save for the spelling and just different modes of hot air.
    A crook is a crook, is a crook...
    Last edited by no2guncntrl; 06-05-2007 at 09:11 PM.

  2. #47
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Yup.. it's party time up on the hill. The more I see of the "new" Congress... the more I miss the "old" congress..

    Most Open Congress In History Is History

    Most Open Congress In History Is History

    That’s the only conclusion you can reach after reading this article. Of course, it doesn’t come as a surprise after writing about it here. Here’s a refresher on what I said then:

    House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey first skirted the new rules by claiming no earmarks were contained in the supplemental appropriations. Last week, he decreed that henceforth, earmarks in his bills would not be revealed until a measure passes both the House and Senate.
    Now it’s official:

    Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify “earmarks'’ - lawmakers’ requests for specific projects and contracts for their states - in documents that accompany spending bills.

    Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

    Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.

    Such requests total billions of dollars.
    In other words, David Obey has taken it upon himself to unilaterally declare the House rules that he voted for as irrelevant. That’s the embodiment of audacity. Who made him king? That type of imperiousness won’t ingratiate his party with voters. That type of hubris is the type of thing that turns voters off.

    I dare Rep. Obey to attempt that. If he sticks with his plan, I’ll tie a string of tin cans to his tail a mile long. And I’ll tie it there in October, 2007. Furthermore, I’ll point it out until Election Day, 2008. If Mr. Obey doesn’t want that type of attention, he’d better play by the rules that he voted for. PERIOD.

    Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

    That’s a pile of Barbra Streisand. These requests should be posted online so that everyone in America can review the earmarks. They could be vetted within a week. Furthermore, Obey is our employee. As such, we demand that he spend all his time reviewing these requests. If there’s alot, then he’d start vetting the requests ASAP and he’d better tell his staff that vetting these requests is their sole focus until they’re all finished before the bills are voted on in the House. Anything less is unacceptable.

    Budget watchdog groups who “scrub” appropriations bills for questionable provisions are outraged. “Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks?” Tom Schatz, president of the Citizens Against Government Waste. “What that does is leave out the public’s input.”
    Mr. Schatz has just nailed it. Obey’s intent is to limit public criticism. This next paragraph gives us ammunition on why we should unite with Mr. Schatz:

    What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny when appropriations bills are debated.
    We demanded earmark reform so that we could pressure the worst ’serial earmarkers’. We should let them know in definitive, unambiguous terms that we demand more fiscal restraint and personal responsibility than hiding behind a power drunk tyrant like Rep. Obey.

    If Obey doesn’t comply, then Republicans should file an ethics charge against Obey each day until Obey stops sidestepping the rules. In fact, the Club For Growth should start running ads on this intentional ignoring of the rules.

    The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them.
    I’m all for complying with that rule but they should also certify that they aren’t getting substantial campaign contributions from earmark recipients like Jack Murtha did.

    Technorati: Earmarks, Corruption, Culture Of Corruption, David Obey, John Murtha, Serial Earmarker, Democrats, Accountability

    Cross-posted at California Conservative
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #48
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Democratic earmark reforms lasted 100 days

    EDITORIAL: Democratic earmark reforms lasted 100 days

    When Democrats took control of Congress four months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., bragged it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring members to attach their names to their "earmarks," exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny.

    She failed to mention this "reform" would remain in effect for little more than 100 days.

    At this point, "Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify 'earmarks' -- lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states -- in documents that accompany spending bills," The Associated Press reported Monday.

    "Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them," The AP continued.

    Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., now says those requests for billions of dollars to finance home-district dams, bridges and research contracts won't be added to spending measures till the fall, when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to the president. But that means few lawmakers will get a chance to oppose specific projects.

    Rep. Obey insists he's taking the step "reluctantly" because his Appropriations Committee hasn't had time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have come flooding in -- despite all the Democrats' talk of "reform."

    But predictably, watchdog groups who "scrub" appropriations bills for questionable provisions are outraged.

    "What that does is leave out the public's input," objects Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

    "This is not more sunlight," agrees Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "This is actually keeping earmarks secret until it's too late to do anything about it."

    The House-Senate compromise bills cannot be amended when they come up for final action in September, at which point they're subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges.

    Meantime, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chuckled and accepted congratulatory handshakes on May 22 after his fellow Democrats banded together to permanently table (219-189) an official reprimand of the Pennsylvania Democrat for violating his party's own four-month-old rule barring "revenge killing" of other members' earmarks.

    The whole point of the Democratic "reform" was to allow other members to criticize and oppose pork set-asides. But last month, when Rep. Murtha (the second-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, a man so powerful that he secured more than $200 million for his personal pet projects in 2006 alone, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense) sponsored an earmark to authorize $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center -- a government agency that happens to be based in his district -- Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent, had the nerve to rise and propose the allocation be canceled.

    Rep. Rogers was acting in accordance with the Bush administration's desire to close the office, which duplicates services provided by the FBI and which has received repeated low marks from several federal review boards.

    Rep. Rogers' attempt to cut the $23 million failed. Despite that, on May 17 an outraged Rep. Murtha -- who in his failed bid for majority leader described the ethics package in a private meeting with lawmakers as "total crap" -- approached Rep. Rogers on the House floor.

    "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," the now-tabled resolution quotes Rep. Murtha as telling Rep. Rogers.

    Rep. Murtha has never disputed Rep. Rogers' account. He doesn't have to. He knows he will never be disciplined for violating Ms. Pelosi's reforms, because he had it right the first time. The "anti-earmark reforms" are just for show. Mere window dressing. Why, if we enjoyed the immunities of a colorful old Democratic congressman, we might even call them "total crap."
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #49
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,820

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    ^^As ridiculous as it is, anyone threatening to rain on Obey's power march is likely to be unsuccessful. The guy won the most recent election by 62% to 35% against his nearest competitor and has been in this post since 1989. He represents a poor region in a relatively poor and largely politically insignificant state (on a national scale). His district isn't liable to turn from the Democrats anytime soon. There's just not much development up there and the people don't give a crap about the issues that drive the coasts or either political fringe. I doubt many spend much idle time thinking about pork barrel spending.

  5. #50
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    ^^As ridiculous as it is, anyone threatening to rain on Obey's power march is likely to be unsuccessful. The guy won the most recent election by 62% to 35% against his nearest competitor and has been in this post since 1989. He represents a poor region in a relatively poor and largely politically insignificant state (on a national scale). His district isn't liable to turn from the Democrats anytime soon. There's just not much development up there and the people don't give a crap about the issues that drive the coasts or either political fringe. I doubt many spend much idle time thinking about pork barrel spending.
    He's not going anytime soon to be sure.... Bit more "good news"...

    “Earmarks Have Turned the Congress into an ATM Machine”

    “Earmarks Have Turned the Congress into an ATM Machine”
    The Appropriations chairman wants members to Obey.

    By Stephen Spruiell

    House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D, Wis.) indicated Monday in an interview with National Review Online that he might not include any earmarks in the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bills if members get too “greedy” with their requests. The move would effectively extend a moratorium he and his Senate counterpart, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, W.V.), put into place when the Democrats took power in January.

    Obey made these remarks in the course of defending his decision not to put any earmarks into the appropriations bills until they go to conference committees with the Senate, most likely some time in September. Critics of this plan, such as anti-pork Rep. Jeff Flake (R, Ariz.), argue that it wouldn’t give members enough time to review earmarks (provisions lawmakers can attach to bills directing agencies to fund specific projects) and offer amendments to strike out especially egregious ones.

    But Obey says, “With all due respect, it’s a helluva lot more important that the committee that has jurisdiction” — in this case, Appropriations — “has the time to look at those requests.” Obey says he and his staff need the extra time to evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests members have submitted to the Appropriations Committee this year. “I think we have a helluva lot more ability [to root out bad earmarks],” he says, “than the individual working alone.”

    Obey says he’s also getting tired of the Bush administration’s criticism of his plan to cut earmarks in half. Office of Management and Budget officials have argued that Obey’s plan doesn’t go far enough, because it defines earmarks in a way that they feel is too narrow.

    Obey says, “According to the White House, an earmark is anything Congress changes about their budget. Well that’s bull gravy.” His point is that the administration directs spending to its own priorities in ways similar to those by which lawmakers fund projects through earmarks.

    Then Obey alluded to the possibility of not having any earmarks in the 2008 spending bills. “When and if we have earmarks — and I am still skeptical that we will have earmarks in the end, and I am skeptical because people get greedy and they screw up the whole process — but if we have earmarks I hope we can show exactly what kind of spending the executive branch wants alongside what kind of spending the legislature asked for.”

    When asked to clarify whether this meant he was considering extending the moratorium on earmarks, Obey said, “I have no idea if there are going to be earmarks in the bills or not. We have made a good faith effort to reinstitute the process, but with two understandings. First, people have to have certificates stating that they have no financial interest in the earmarks they sponsor. And second, that we are going to try to cut earmarks in half, because it is just physically impossible… our staff does not have the time to go through this many earmarks.”

    Flake says he doubts Obey is seriously considering having an earmark-free 2008. “I sure want to believe it,” Flake says, “but I’ll be very surprised if that’s the case.

    Flake says he thinks Obey might just be buying time for his heavily criticized plan to postpone putting in earmarks until conference: “He may dangle [the idea of a moratorium] out there in hopes that people won’t pay attention while bills are going through the House and then just dump the earmarks in the bills in conference as he has already said he wants to do. If so, that is a far worse process than the process we had.”

    Flake disagrees with Obey’s position that the Appropriations Committee is best-positioned to evaluate this year’s flood of requests. “That just doesn’t pass the laugh test. The appropriations committee scrubbing earmarks? The only way to scrub them is to let the public know what’s there,” Flake says, arguing that the media, bloggers and other concerned groups would bring a kind of scrutiny to bear on the new earmark disclosure forms that the appropriators couldn’t or wouldn’t. “Keeping them secret until no amendments could even be offered to strip them out is no way to scrub earmarks.”

    Obey argues that the Democrats did not pass new disclosure requirements to make it easier for Flake and other budget hawks to cut spending. “The process is not supposed to be designed to serve the interests of a handful of members,” he says. “It’s designed to serve the interests of the institution.”

    Obey argued that the Republicans are the ones who let earmarking get out of control. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the number of earmarked projects tripled from 2000 to 2005, before declining slightly in 2006. The amount of money spent on these projects in that period grew from $18 to $29 billion, accompanied by historic, across-the-board increases in federal spending. One of the worst scandals to hit the GOP in the last decade, the Randy “Duke” Cunningham affair, involved trading millions of dollars in earmarks for campaign cash and gifts. Earmarks have come to symbolize a congressional culture of incontinent spending and rank favor-trading.

    Obey says he agrees. “If I had my way there wouldn’t be any damn earmarks. They are a huge nuisance,” he says. “I detest the fact that earmarks have turned the Congress into an ATM machine for members’ districts.”

    “Having said that,” Obey continues, “I recognize that the Congress has every bit as much ability to make wise decisions as OMB does about spending money on projects that truly deserve the funding.” Obey says his staff will be putting out a series of reports over the next few weeks on what he calls “executive earmarks.” His point is that the executive branch can be just as guilty as Congress of directing spending based on political calculations.

    OMB spokeswoman Christin Baker disagrees, arguing that it all comes down to the power of the purse. “Emblazoned across the top of the House Appropriations Committee website banner, you’ll see this citation: ‘No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by law,’” Baker writes in e-mail. The quote comes from Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

    “That citation isn’t displayed there by accident,” Baker writes. “The actions by Congress determine how federal dollars are spent, and the legislative branch naturally guards this Constitutionally-granted power.”

    “Congress asks the Administration to provide detailed documentation showing and justifying how it plans to allocate proposed funding,” she writes. “Showing how funding will be allocated through a competitive or merit-based process is not an earmark.”
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 06-05-2007 at 05:28 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #51
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,820

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Well, in a few more months we'll know who's shooting straight and who's blowing smoke. I also doubt that the budget will be earmark-free, as Obey states he wishes. I think Obey is seriously misguided in believing that the best way to vet earmarks is behind closed doors and out of the public eye.

    And 36,000 earmarks? Sheesh. Do our legislators do anything *but* grub money for their districts? For anyone keeping track, that's about 83 per legislator in the House.

    At least Obey is spot on in one regard. Pork ballooned under the Republican legislature/Bush Whitehouse. And the clowns think Iraq is the only reason they got hammered last November. . .

  7. #52
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Obey: You Can Review Earmarks, But Can't Do Anything About Them

    We've chronicled before the Democratic retreat on promises to limit and fully disclose the lists of pork-barrel projects included in appropriations bills. Now House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has clarified that even though pork-barrel projects won't be added to bills until immediately before they are voted on, Members will be given 'plenty of time' to review them before a vote. If one or more of those projects is a particularly egregious waste of taxpayer money... well, too bad. Because you still won't be able to eliminate them--or even get a vote on them:

    Obey has been criticized for his plan to advance the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills through his committee and the House floor without earmarks. Obey said funding for these projects can be added later in conference with the Senate...

    “Members will be able to write this committee if they have any objection to an earmark the conference committee is putting in, and the sponsor of that earmark will have an opportunity to respond to any criticism,” Obey said today.
    How will such criticisms be handled? Well, you can't be too optimistic when you realize that you're writing to a Chairman who has previously argued that an earmark isn't an earmark if it's put in the bill by him.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #53
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Lets see... weekly talley of how our new majority is doing:

    Senators Block Vote on Gonzales

    The Senate yesterday rejected a bid to conduct a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, as Republicans declined to defend the embattled presidential confidant but rejected the effort as a political stunt.
    Approval of Congress lowest in a decade

    Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.
    Hey Harry.. the president you berate for doing a lousy job is holding at 34...

    Harry Reid’s Favorables Fall to 19%

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.
    Oh... about that pork....

    House Republicans Declare War on Secret Earmarks & Wasteful Spending

    This week on the House floor Democrats in Congress will begin their efforts in earnest to hide pork-barrel projects from voters, budget watchdog groups, and Republicans who challenge wasteful spending. They’re gutting rules designed to help voters know where their tax dollars are going and creating massive slush funds for secret earmarks. And while they shut voters out of the budget process, they’re spending more with each passing day – an extra $105 billion so far this year alone. With the first four major appropriations bill on the House floor this week, Republicans are saying, “Enough is enough.”

    Last fall, Democratic leaders repeatedly promised to lead Congress in a more “open” and “honest” fashion. Now they’re not only breaking those promises, they’re actively moving in the opposite direction.
    Powerline chines in:

    Tumbling Democrats

    "Ethically challenged" doesn't really do the Democrats justice. Picture a gang of drunken sailors who have broken into the ship's rum supply, and you're near the mark
    Arentya glad ya voted for a change??

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #54
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings




    Cheney’s more popular than Reid


    Cheney’s more popular than Reid

    Senate Plurality Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said: “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration’s chief attack dog (VP Cheney). … I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.”

    This just in: Cheney is more popular than Reid.

    Reported the Wall Street Journal: “Among other individuals included in the poll, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) saw her approval rating fall to 30% in April from 38% in February, shortly after her swearing-in as the first female House speaker. Approval for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) slipped to 22%, from 23% in February but up from 19% a year ago.”

    Cheney’s approval rate? 25%.

    Don’t hand me that disapproval jazz either. Reid said approval rating.

    Harry “Tara” Reid is the best the Dems can come up with?

    Via my Washington bureau.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #55
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    The swamp is filling up fast.. they are going to have to knock down a wall and add on.... Lets see... Bill & Hill Clinton, Vinod Gupta, Pelosi, InfoUSA and Opinion Research Corporation the marketing firm which conducts polling with CNN.

    Nope... nothing to see there...

    Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi's Son Get Paid Big Bucks by InfoUSA

    The son of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert moved to Washington when his father became speaker and landed a lush lobbying contract for Google.

    When Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives, she promised to change things — to enact serious, and long overdue, ethical reforms — to stop the growing trend of legislators and their families accepting gifts, trips, and jobs from lobbyists and corporations.

    Well, some things never change.

    Several days ago, Newsmax.com disclosed that in February, shortly after his mother became the first woman speaker, Paul Pelosi Jr., was hired by InfoUSA for $180,000 a year as its vice president for Strategic Planning. Pelosi also kept his other full-time day job as a mortgage loan officer for Countrywide Loans in California. And, unlike all of the other InfoUSA employees, he did not report to work at the company's headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.

    InfoUSA is the same company that has been cited by the New York Times for creating marketing lists that were used by con artists to fleece vulnerable elderly people. The lists had provocative names and offered the names of elderly people with cancer, elderly people with Alzheimer's and gamblers over 55 years of age who think their luck will change. After purchasing the lists, the con artists would call and convince the elderly person that they had actually ordered an expensive item. Once they received the victim's financial information, they often emptied their bank accounts, leaving many people penniless. Some of InfoUSA's internal e-mails suggest that company employees were aware that several of the companies they sold the lists to were under investigation.

    And InfoUSA is also the same company that Bill Clinton works for as a consultant, and for which the former president was paid $3.3 million over the past five years. In addition, the Clintons got $900,000 worth of free travel.

    Pelosi insisted that the unusual job opportunity had nothing to do with his relationship with his famous and influential mother. He just sent in an application for a job and they hired him.

    Of course.

    History seems to be repeating itself here. For the past several years, Josh Hastert, the son of former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, was a registered lobbyist for Google. What were his qualifications for lobbying for such a huge and influential company? Well, to put it bluntly, he had good connections.

    Before entering the world of corporate lobbying, Josh ran a music store in northern Illinois. But he decided that he could make more money and work less in Washington. And apparently, he was right.

    Although Pelosi's son is not lobbying Congress, the unorthodox payment of such a large fee for a second job to someone with no experience at all in the basic business of InfoUSA — managing data and creating marketing lists — should certainly raise eyebrows. (Also note, that this job offer came immediately after his mother became Speaker.)

    And, furthermore, it is likely that Congress will eventually address privacy issues involved with the selling of data that InfoUSA sells. Pelosi would be directly involved in that legislation, and her son should not be involved with the company in any way. In addition, the company apparently sells voter lists that could be extremely valuable to the Democratic Party and could mean lucrative contracts for Infousa.

    And then, there's the issue of what InfoUSA does and how its president operates.

    Several members of Congress have asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Infousa and its clients.

    The chairman of InfoUSA, Vin Gupta, is a large donor to Democratic candidates. Minority shareholders have questioned his payments to Bill Clinton and his gifts of free travel to Hillary. The shareholders claim that Gupta has been improperly using corporate resources to further his own political goals. Gupta gave over $1 million to the Clinton Library and $2 million towards Hillary Clinton's $16 million millennium New Years' Eve Party.

    So, there's no question that Gupta likes to be close to the powerful. He's stayed in the Lincoln bedroom and hosted the Clintons on a $146,000 vacation trip to Acapulco on his corporate jet. Lately, Pelosi's son has been accompanying Gupta on his jet. He claims that it's been strictly business and is “nothing like the Clinton situation.”

    His payment to Pelosi's son can only be viewed as an investment and should be stopped.

    Nancy Pelosi should put on her “mother of five voice” that she brags about and tell her son to go back to his day job.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #56
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Birds of a feather.... Billary giving good insight on what types she would surround herself with were she to get elected... the same company she has always kept. Get your drop mats and mops out.. the snail trail passes through her campaign headquarters. She seems to have an "impeachment" fetish.

    Hillary Names Impeached Judge as Co-Chair

    Hillary Names Impeached Judge as Co-Chair

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed two national co-chairs for her presidential campaign -- including a former U.S. District Court judge who was impeached.

    U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats, will be two of several co-chairs who will help direct Clinton's effort to win the White House in 2008.

    "We need a leader with a clear vision and sound judgment, who can work with a Democratic Congress to renew the promise of America. Hillary is that leader," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.

    Hastings said a second Clinton in the White House would make the country "a much better place for the African-American community, Floridians and all Americans."

    Hastings was U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida from 1979 to 1989, until he was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He was only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history. He ran successfully for the U.S. House in 1992.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #57
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Sen. Schumer launches investigation, irony


    Senator Schumer has been in the ethically, er, interesting position of both Chairing the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on oversight (i.e., investigating the US Attorney story) and heading up the DSCC. Think about that.

    Let's consider the irony:

    * Senator Schumer heads "the political arm of the Democratic caucus that is charged with" trying to pick up the seat of a Republican Senator.


    * Schumer is investigating the allegation that a Republican pressured a US Attorney to move forward on an investigation for electoral advantage.


    * Senator Schumer is moving forward on his investigation against one of the people whose seat he is trying to pick up.



    Naturally, Schumer's DSCC sent out an "attack e-mail to financial supporters" while he was pursuing the investigation. Synergy!

    If the irony has not yet overwhelmed you, consider Schumer's previous comments...

    * "Do you know what he [Sen. D'Amato] did right after he got elected? . He became chairman of the national Senate Republican Campaign Committee, the most blatantly political position you can hold. Then, shortly after that, he embarked on his partisan and political inquisition of the First Family." — Sen. Schumer, 1998



    * "Among the blizzard of attack ads running this weekend is one in which Schumer charged that D'Amato used the Banking Committee he heads to mount a 'vicious' partisan attack on first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton three years ago." - Sen. Schumer, 1998



    I didn't actually expect better - I merely note it for the historical record.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #58
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    keep up the good werk Harry, Pelosi and Co..

    Democratic Congress shows cracks

    Republican campaign strategists and independent election analysts say that after five months of contentious House Democratic rule, the Republican Party's once-bleak congressional prospects for 2008 have markedly improved.

    The Democratic Congress' job approval score is now worse than President Bush's, plummeting to 23 percent, a drop of eight points since April. House Democrats have been forced to retreat in the face of a furious assault by Republicans on pork-barrel spending, an issue that hurt the Republican Party in November. And Republican recruiting has produced plenty of candidates eyeing weak Democratic freshmen in Republican-leaning districts that swept them into office last year.

    "Republican recruiting seems to be progressing at a reasonable pace. GOP strategists have about half a dozen seats that they know the party should never have lost ... and eight of the nine most vulnerable House seats currently are held by Democrats," elections analyst Stu Rothenberg wrote last week in his Political Report newsletter.

    Strategists at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) confirm that a larger than expected number of House seats are now being targeted by the NRCC and that a surprisingly larger-than-expected number of seasoned candidates from state legislatures and other elective offices are coming forward to challenge Democrats who took over Republican districts.

    "A lot of Republican candidates are seeing an opportunity for higher office for the first time in a while. They've been waiting in the wings with a lot of pent-up ambitions, hoping that a Republican incumbent was going to retire, and now see that it's held by a Democrat," said NRCC press secretary Ken Spain.

    "These candidates are smart and realize that 2006 was a wave election and it's highly unlikely that Democrats will get back-to-back cycles like that in a row," he said.

    In a strategy aimed at blunting the Republican Party's comeback bid, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), "is focused on expanding the playing field," said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC's communications director.

    "There will be more than 60 seats in play in this cycle, and we already have more than 30 candidates who have filed," she said.

    "When you look at the issues environment, whether the war in Iraq or Republicans trying to obstruct the mainstream agenda Democrats are pushing, like the minimum wage and fiscal accountability, the Democrats are going to have a formidable agenda to run on," she said.

    But Mr. Spain and Mr. Rothenberg also pointed to a change in the political environment that, if it continues into next year, would work to the Republicans' advantage.

    "Recent polling suggests that [the Democratic] Congress's standing has slipped again, and Congress's apparent inability to deal with immigration reform could add to public frustration," Mr. Rothenberg said in his newsletter.

    "At the same time, the defeat of immigration reform could well be a net plus for congressional Republicans, many of whom can and will run against 'amnesty' and illegal immigration next year," he said.

    But he also points to the flip side of this year's political environment where "Democrats hold most of the cards one-quarter of the way to the 2008 elections: the president's numbers remain low and voters want change; the generic presidential ballot gives Democrats a big advantage; the war is still extremely unpopular, and Republicans seem to have no rallying agenda."

    Still, he adds, "for the first time in months, there may be a crack or two starting to show in the Democrats' position."

    That crack appears to be widening in at least a dozen or more congressional districts where Democrats are vulnerable to a Republican upset.

    In Florida's heavily Republican 16th District, for example, where Democrat Tim Mahoney narrowly won the seat after Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned in the House page sex sandal, the Republican Party is now widely favored to get the seat back.

    In Georgia's 8th District, Democrat Jim Marshall squeaked through with less than 1,800 votes in what Mr. Spain called "the worst Republican environment since Watergate." The Republican Party is rallying behind Rick Goddard, the former commanding general at the Warner Robins Air Logistics base, who is expected to give Mr. Marshall a tough race.

    In Texas's 22nd District, which gave Mr. Bush 64 percent of its vote in 2004, Democrat Nick Lampson won by a slim margin, even though his Republican opponent was not on the ballot. "This is probably the GOP's best opportunity to take back a district they lost last year," Mr. Rothenberg said.

    "In order to win back the majority, we don't have to conquer new territory. We just need to reclaim old territory," Mr. Spain said.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #59
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    lol @ N@n... soo not concerned about approval ratings.. she compares hers to GWB. I'm guess Harry Reid will not be making comparisons any time soon..

    Pelosi Expresses Optimism for House Action on Immigration Law

    Pelosi, after five months in the job, said she isn't concerned about her own approval ratings.

    ``All I can worry about is getting the job done,'' Pelosi said. ``Most of us here are at the mercy of hate radio every day of the week, and that takes its toll. And I can't be concerned about that. Whatever our ratings are, my ratings are, they're still way ahead of the president.''
    A quick roundup of the "job" N@n and Co. have been doing:

    S. RES. 233: Making minority party appointments for the Select Committee on Ethics for the 110th Congress. [Agreed to Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-13 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 233 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 232: Congratulating the University of Colorado at Boulder Men's Cross Country team for winning the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men's Cross Country Championship. [Agreed to Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-12 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 232 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 231: Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future. [Introduced in Senate]
    Published: 2007-06-12 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill:
    231 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 230: Designating the month of July 2007 as "National Teen Safe Driver Month". [Introduced in Senate]
    Published: 2007-06-11 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 230 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 229: Honoring Willliam Clifton France. [Agreed to Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-07 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 229 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 228: Congratulating the Brown University women's crew team for winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Rowing Championship. [Agreed to Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-07 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill:
    228 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 227: Congratulating the Johns Hopkins University Blue Jays for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship. [Agreed to Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-07 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 227 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 226: Recognizing the month of November as "National Homeless Youth Awareness Month". [Introduced in Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-07 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 226 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 225: Designating the month of August 2007 as "National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month". [Introduced in Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-07 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 225 - Type: Senate Resolution

    S. RES. 224: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. [Introduced in Senate]

    Published: 2007-06-07 - Congress: 110 - Session: 1 - Bill: 224 - Type: Senate Resolution
    Bills & Resolutions Legislation proposed, amended, voted up or down, or ignored
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 06-18-2007 at 07:30 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #60
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    I cant believe theres only 4 dems voting in this pole All I can say is what the hell are the jerks in congress doing?I thought I had an easy do nothing job Man Atleast I get something done in 6 months.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •