Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, February 16, 2007

DNC Complicit With GOP Abuse of Power, Illegal Activity

DNC In the Senate 2001-2006

The GOP seems to be doing things in the Senate that leaves me wondering: What was getting in the way of the DNC, as a minority party, of doing what the GOP was dong; and why was the DNC unwilling to break ranks from the GOP and deny the GOP the required 60 votes to override a filibuster?

It looks like the DNC didn't do some things that it could have done.

* * *

On this Iraq debate in the Senate -- the number that keeps floating around is 60: The number of votes required to do anything, end a debate.

Let's back up. Last time I checked the DNC, when it was in the majority, didn't have a 39-61 minority; but maybe something like 54-46.

Also, there was a time when the DNC did have control of Congress between 2001-2006.


1. The DNC has been in the minority and majority already under Bush, so this control of the Senate isn't new.

2. I want to know, with this 60-vote rule thing, who was stupid enough in the DNC to not fully support the DNC; and decided to support the RNC. I'm not talking by names, or votes -- but general philosophy of the DNC while they were under seige: Where was the DNC leadership in the Senate to compel full support for anti-GOP position.

3. Now, in the majority position, who in the DNC is willing to spew forth the non-sense that "having 60 votes" is required, when the issue is: Who in the DNC is going to do what is required: Stick with the DNC.

___ Why isn't the Senate Majority leader requiring an actual debate if a filibuster is threatened?

___ 2/3 is required to end the filibuster: Why isn't the DNC refusing to end the filibuster, and forcing the GOP to take the floor and not talk about Iraq -- shut down the Senate, and refuse to pass the President's agenda.

* * *

It doesn't matter if the GOP threatens a filibuster or not: Let them talk about whatever they want; and show that they are not willing to vote.

___ Who cares if the President's agenda isn't getting attention;

___ It doesn't matter if the Senate does nothing: This President cannot afford the Senate to get distracted -- everything the GOP Senators do will put them in a worse position.

* * *

Getting back to the 60-vote requirement:

___ Why wasn't the DNC doing this with bills related to the Patriot Act, which the DNC said were illegal?

___ Why Filibuster used?

___ Why didn't the DNC force the Vice President to eliminate the Filibuster option?

___ If the Filibuster option was not being used, who cared if the Vice President had removed the option?

* * *

I'm sitting her dumbfounded asking, Why wasn't the DNC doing what the GOP was doing:

___ Sticking together;

___ Making teh GOP scramble for votes to keep the Agenda going

What I really want to know is: If the Senate really requires 60 votes to do something, who in the DNC was stupid enough to cooperate with the destruction of this Constitution; and what was in the mind of teh DNC leadership to be complicit with the GOP actions?

___ Why did the DNC Members Cross the aisle and support the GOP on these issues?

They had the minority power to filibuster, and didn't use it. They had a rough 50-50 split, but crossed the aisle to support things they say we should not put up with.