• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sob sob

fff

Well-known member
It's hard to be a Republican these days.

Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.

The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.

“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”

In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.

And in a closed-door session at the Capitol, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told members that the NRCC doesn’t have enough cash to “save them” in November if they don’t raise enough money or run strong campaigns themselves.

Although a top House Republican brushed aside Gingrich’s broadside as “hype from a has-been who desperately wants to be a player but can’t anymore,” the harsh words from Cole were harder to ignore.

“It was a pretty stern line that he took with us,” said one House Republican.

Cole, on the defensive in the wake of special election losses in Louisiana and Illinois, pointed his finger Tuesday at his Republican colleagues, telling them that they had been too stingy in helping fund party efforts. He also complained that the Republicans ran weak candidates in both Louisiana and Illinois — a charge Cole made despite the fact that, as NRCC chairman, he could have played a major role in choosing the party’s candidates if he hadn’t made the decision to stay out of GOP primaries.

In his meeting with members, Cole distributed a document showing that even former Republican political guru Karl Rove had badmouthed Jenkins, according to GOP sources. It’s not clear whether Cole meant it as a criticism of Rove or of Jenkins.

But Cole’s overall message was clear, said members who sat through the meeting: “If you’re not out doing your own work, and you’re waiting for the NRCC to come in at the last minute and save you, it ain’t gonna happen.” That’s how one lawmaker characterized Cole’s talk, adding that the NRCC is “not going to have the resources” to help all members “and Democrats will have a lot more money.”

Republicans are suffering a crisis of confidence after the two special election losses. There’s talk that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and other GOP leaders could be ousted if the party suffers double-digit losses in November.

Gingrich’s broadside did little to calm the GOP jitters.

While Gingrich softened his blow by circulating it privately to the GOP leadership on Monday — a day before it was publicly released — his language was still strong, and his message was seen as a broad attack on Boehner, Cole and the rest of the Republican leadership.

“The Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District last Saturday should be a sharp wake-up call for Republicans,” Gingrich wrote. “Either congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November.”

Gingrich said Republicans cannot rely on the popularity of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, to carry them to victory in November. And he warned that attacks on Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, could backfire.

“The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti-Rev. Wright or, if Sen. Clinton wins, anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail,” Gingrich said. “This model has already been tested with disastrous results.”

The NRCC ran TV ads tying Cazayoux to national Democratic figures in the Louisiana special election, only to see Democrats grab control of a House seat that had been in the GOP column for more than three decades.

Gingrich, who was pushed out as speaker following GOP losses in the 1998 midterm elections, advocated “an emergency, members-only” meeting of House Republicans in order to hash out a new reform agenda before Memorial Day. He also called for a “complete overhaul” of the NRCC.

Gingrich said that if the GOP leadership would not go along with his plan, “then the minority who are activists should establish a parallel organization dedicated to real change.” He offered nine policy proposals designed to achieve that goal, including repealing federal gas taxes, reforming the Census Bureau and declaring English as the official language of the United States.

Boehner tried to put the best face on Gingrich’s message. His spokesman, Michael Steel, said that Boehner “certainly agrees — and has said repeatedly — that Republicans can only succeed this year by being agents of change and reform.” Steel said Republicans have to convince voters that they can “fix” Washington and that, in the coming weeks, they will be “laying out Republican policies that embody the sort of changes we need.”

But there is no question that Gingrich has identified a nervous undercurrent among House Republicans that could morph into full-fledged panic if the GOP loses a special election next Tuesday in Mississippi. Republican Greg Davis is squaring off against Democrat Travis Childers for the House seat held by former Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who was appointed to the Senate to replace retired Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

With internal polls from both parties showing the race as a tossup, the GOP is putting on a full-court press. The White House has dispatched Vice President Cheney to Mississippi to campaign on Davis’ behalf. And Wicker, Lott, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour will hold events for Davis this weekend and early next week, according to GOP sources.

House Republicans will hold a rally with President Bush on Wednesday morning, with all 199 members invited to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to show solidarity with the president, according to GOP sources.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10138.html

Yep, that ought to fix everything. Fix the CENSUS BUREAU?? Now that's something I know all of us have been praying for. Declare English the official language? Repeal the gas tax when the roads and bridges in this country are falling apart? Go for it, Newt. And, last but not least, show your solidarity with a 28% approval rating president. This is almost sad, if Republicans didn't deserve it so much.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Come November maybe you will finally have something to smile about.

I'm going to be just fine either way. I'll say it again. This time I will be on the other end of it.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Gingrich said Republicans cannot rely on the popularity of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, to carry them to victory in November.
TheDog.gif


As though bush lite has any popularity to warrant any support............
And he warned that attacks on Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, could backfire.

“The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti-Rev. Wright or, if Sen. Clinton wins, anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail,” Gingrich said. “This model has already been tested with disastrous results.”

LMAO.gif
LMAO.gif
LMAO.gif
LMAO.gif
LMAO.gif
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If BarryO wins the nomination, all they have to do is play Hillary sound bites and if Hillary gets the nod, they do the same from the Obama-LLama archives. Either way, they'll have a Democrat that half the party believes in explaining how the other Democrat will make a crappy president!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
Yep, that ought to fix everything. Fix the CENSUS BUREAU?? Now that's something I know all of us have been praying for. Declare English the official language? Repeal the gas tax when the roads and bridges in this country are falling apart? Go for it, Newt.
Don't worry, ff. Maybe they can still find time to help Nancy with her 'important' agenda. Maybe they can pisss test some baseball players and name a Post Office. :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Texan said:
fff said:
Yep, that ought to fix everything. Fix the CENSUS BUREAU?? Now that's something I know all of us have been praying for. Declare English the official language? Repeal the gas tax when the roads and bridges in this country are falling apart? Go for it, Newt.
Don't worry, ff. Maybe they can still find time to help Nancy with her 'important' agenda. Maybe they can pisss test some baseball players and name a Post Office. :lol:

But more likley they'll do something like this:

Senior executives from some of the nation’s largest drug companies are up for a tough grilling Thursday from a congressional oversight panel over allegations the industry engaged in deceptive marketing practices in its television commercials.

The scrutiny comes as many critics are questioning how direct-to-consumer advertising has affected safety, soaring health care costs and the public’s consumption of drugs.

The hearing is the latest in a series the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has held on drug safety and on what its chairman, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), calls “the deceptive tactics of drug companies in their direct-to-consumer advertising.”

The companies on the subcommittee griddle Thursday are:

* Pfizer, which ran more than $250 million worth of ads for its Lipitor anti-cholesterol medication. The ads featured artificial heart pioneer Robert Jarvik, who’s portrayed in the commercial as if he’s giving medical advice, though in fact he’s not licensed to practice medicine.

* Merck/Schering-Plough, which continued a $200 million-per-year advertising campaign for its own anti-cholesterol drugs, Vytorin and Zetia, even as it was alleged to have hidden clinical trial data showing the drug was no more effective than much cheaper generic alternatives. The companies sold $5.2 billion worth of the drugs last year.

* Johnson & Johnson, which is alleged to have marketed its Procrit medication as an energy enhancer, although it was not approved for that use. The drug was produced by a subsidiary, Ortho Biotech Products.

Pfizer and Merck/Schering-Plough pulled their ads in the wake of the congressional investigations. The Johnson & Johnson ads stopped in 2005. All three companies have denied wrongdoing and declined interview requests.

Pfizer issued a statement saying it is “committed to ensuring greater clarity in the roles and responsibilities of its spokespeople in its consumer advertising.”

Stupak, though, continues to press the companies to be accountable for their ads.

“The issues with these ads aren’t limited to the three campaigns we will examine in our hearing,” he said. “But they serve as excellent case studies for problems prevalent in DTC marketing.”

Other witnesses will include health industry experts who will discuss the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising on public health, the practice of medicine and health care costs.

“Doctors, frankly, hate it” when patients come in asking for a specific product, said American Medical Association President-Elect Nancy Nielsen, who will also testify at the hearing. The AMA wants the ads to be more tightly regulated, with stiff penalties for noncompliance.

“We have to recognize that direct-to-consumer adverting is primarily marketing, not education,” she said.
The drug industry maintains that the advertising serves the public by providing information about diseases and treatments. “It prompts a lot of patients to see a doctor for the first time and, in some cases, saves their lives,” said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

The real effect of the advertising, though, may not be so straightforward. Recent studies suggest that doctors will often prescribe drugs to patients who ask for them, despite having reservations about their utility, said Dominick Frosch, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA who has studied the impact of drug industry advertising.

This drives up health care costs and could have adverse results if patients take something they shouldn’t, he said. “If you buy the wrong bar of soap, it won’t do much harm,” he explained. “But if you buy the wrong prescription drug, it may well hurt you.”

The drug industry is also under fire for its role in soaring health care costs. Some studies suggest that its advertising on television, which has only existed for a decade, has played a significant role.

A third of the population reports having asked for drugs they have seen advertised on TV and, in many cases, reports having received such drugs, according to recent polls by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
At the same time, four in 10 people who use prescription drugs have problems paying for them, according to the polling study.

Pharmaceutical advertising “steers people toward the newest and very often the most expensive treatment options,” said Drew Nannis, a spokesman for AARP, the senior citizens’ group that plans to submit testimony Thursday.

The drug lobby has strong support from television broadcasters, who fill many of their prime advertising slots with pitches of cures promising that men with urinary tract problems can go whitewater rafting and women with herpes can ride horseback.

And television industry lobbyists will be watching the hearings closely.

“Obviously, it is an important issue for us, not only from a First Amendment perspective but also from a revenue perspective,” said Dennis Wharton, an executive vice president at the National Association of Broadcasters.

The current flood of television commercials began in 1997 after a heavy campaign by the drug lobby to get the Food and Drug Administration to loosen the regulations on advertising, said Steven Findlay, a health care analyst at Consumers Union.

His group, along with other consumer organizations and some branches of the medical community, are concerned that advertising prescription drugs significantly raises the nation’s health care costs, both because of the hundreds of millions of dollars that companies may spend per year pushing a single drug and because it influences people to take drugs they may not need.

“DTC ads do promote a pill culture in this country. They foster a culture in which we think there is a pill for every ill,” Findlay said. His group, Consumers Union, favors a moratorium on advertisements for a drug’s first two years.

Trying to repeal a company’s authority to run the ads at this point is not realistic, he said.

“We do acknowledge that DTC advertising isn’t going away any time soon. They’ve opened the gates,” he said. “This would be tough to undo now.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10175.html
 

Texan

Well-known member
That would be really helpful, ff. :roll:

Maybe if they get through with their political grandstanding on that issue, they can see if Nancy will let them tackle something closer to home? Maybe they'll clean up their own mess a little bit? After all, they are the 'People's House,' aren't they? Nancy and crew were really going to change things up there, weren't they?

"Sob sob" - sounds like it's really tough to be a Democrat these days. :lol:

================================

Lawmakers Use Tax Dollars For Luxury Cars
Fri, 05/02/2008 - 11:26 — Judicial Watch Blog

The U.S. House of Representatives lets members lease vehicles—including insurance and gas—with taxpayer dollars and many lawmakers abuse the program by picking luxury gas-guzzlers that can run up to nearly $1,000 a month, not including fuel and other maintenance costs.

Thankfully, the Senate doesn’t offer this perk but House members counter that savings with their lavish taste. Around 125 members of the House have cars paid for with tax dollars and, although some make the effort to save by leasing modest vehicles, many go all out.

For instance New York Democrat Charles Rangel, who represents the poor neighborhoods of east and central Harlem, leases a Cadillac DeVille for $774.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine that devours gas, which is of no concern to Rangel since he doesn’t pay for it.

When a local news outlet asked Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, about the possibility of finding a cheaper car, he actually said constituents might see it as disrespectful. He added that when he’s in New York his car is his office, that he actually uses it to conduct congressional business so it must be comfortable.

Other members with expensive vehicles that get horrible gas mileage include Queens Democrat Gregory Meeks, who leases a Lexus LS 460 for $998 a month and Brooklyn Democrat EdolphusTowns, whose Lincoln MKX costs taxpayers $715 a month. Other fancy gas guzzlers include Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush’s Lincoln Navigator, Louisiana Democrat Charlie Melancon’s Chevy Tahoe and Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings’ Infiniti M45.

Those wondering why only Democrats are mentioned in this expose can address inquiries to the notoriously liberal east coast newspaper that broke the story. Only two Republicans were mentioned in the report, one who leases a 2004 vehicle for a reasonable $310 a month, and another who doesn’t use the lease program because doing so creates “many ethical issues.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/lawmakers-use-tax-dollars-luxury-cars
 

Texan

Well-known member
I sure wouldn't deny that Republicans have plenty of ethical issues of their own. And Republicans have squandered PLENTY of money over the last few years. :x

But here's what the Republicans mentioned in the Times article had to say about the issue of Congressmen leasing expensive vehicles on the taxpayer's dime AND making taxpayers provide the gas for them:

“There are so many ethical issues people can raise,” said Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican, who stopped leasing a car through his office in 2004. “I felt it just wasn’t worth the trouble or the aggravation. With the issues that people can raise against you, I just figured it didn’t make sense.”


Representative Jim Saxton, a Republican of New Jersey, leases a 2004 Chevy TrailBlazer at what he views as a reasonable $310 a month.

Congressman Saxton feels an elected public official should choose a car that doesn’t cost taxpayers an extravagant amount,” said Jeff Sagnip, his spokesman.



Meanwhile, those Dems in the 'People's House' are really looking out for the people. From the Times article:


Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.


Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.


Representative Edolphus Towns, a Brooklyn Democrat, said he had begun to take fuel economy into consideration and recently traded in his 2005 Lincoln Town Car (at $845 a month) for a 2008 Lincoln MKX, called a crossover utility vehicle, (at $715 a month).

“I no longer have the big car because of the gas situation,” Mr. Towns said.

It turns out, however, that the Town Car and the MKX get the same gas mileage: about 16 m.p.g. in the city and 23 on the highway, according to the Department of Energy.


“I can tell you Lexus has one of the best services and is one of the most reliable cars I know,” said Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Queens Democrat, who leases a 2007 Lexus LS 460 at $998 a month.


For Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a Buffalo-area Democrat, safety was a worry, given her sprawling district. Ms. Slaughter used to drive her personal car to get around, she said. Then, in 2002, her political rivals in the Legislature in Albany redrew her district, in what she viewed as a deliberate effort to force her from office.

The new map, she said, resulted in a vast swath of western New York that is treacherous to travel in winter. She turned to a 2007 Buick Lucerne, which she leases for $808.29 a month.


Mr. Rangel said he frequently offers rides to constituents so they can discuss their concerns in the luxurious confines of his DeVille.

I want them to feel that they are somebody and their congressman is somebody,” Mr. Rangel explained. “And when they say, ‘This is nice,’ it feels good.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/nyregion/01cars.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

========================================

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week.

"It’s like an airplane.”

“And when they say, ‘This is nice,’ it feels good.”


"Sob sob," ff - it's REALLY tough being a Democrat these days, huh? :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
The entire article, not just your chosen quotes:

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

How Some U.S. Representatives Ride “It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.

There are few restrictions on what kind of car the members can choose, and there is no limit on how much they can spend. But the benefit can be politically sensitive, given the growing concerns about automobile emissions and an economy that has left many people struggling to pay for the rapidly rising cost of gas, which was averaging $3.63 a gallon nationwide earlier this week.

Not only does the federal government pick up the cost of the lease and the gas, but also general maintenance, insurance, registration fees and excess mileage charges. The perk itself may draw heightened attention in the coming weeks as members of Congress consider proposals to address gas prices, including one to suspend temporarily the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon.

Congressional records show that about 125 members of the House make use of the benefit, which has been in place since at least the 1980s and is part of the allowance provided for their office operations. They include Representatives Charlie Melancon of Louisiana (2007 Chevy Tahoe), Bobby L. Rush of Illinois (2007 Lincoln Navigator) and Alcee L. Hastings of Florida (2006 Infiniti M45).

The Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.

Of the 42 representatives from New York and New Jersey, at least a dozen lease cars, and their choices run the gamut. Some choose not to lease a car, in an effort to avoid yet one more headache.

“There are so many ethical issues people can raise,” said Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican, who stopped leasing a car through his office in 2004. “I felt it just wasn’t worth the trouble or the aggravation. With the issues that people can raise against you, I just figured it didn’t make sense.”

Members have found themselves under fire in their districts for what their constituents may regard as extravagant tastes or for leasing foreign cars. Before the 2006 election, one Ithaca resident denounced Representative Maurice D. Hinchey’s lease of a BMW 530i to The Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin, saying that Mr. Hinchey, a Democrat, “sticks it to” the taxpayers and American workers. (Mr. Hinchey also leases a 2007 Nissan Altima for $200 a month for his chief of staff.)

In 2007, the House adopted a rule requiring members to choose cars from a list of low-emissions vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about their cars over the past week, many New York representatives offered environmental rationales, some more persuasive than others.

----MY NOTE: 2007? Who was in charge of the House in 2007? Answer for those politically challenged: DEMOCRATS. :lol: :lol:----

Representative Edolphus Towns, a Brooklyn Democrat, said he had begun to take fuel economy into consideration and recently traded in his 2005 Lincoln Town Car (at $845 a month) for a 2008 Lincoln MKX, called a crossover utility vehicle, (at $715 a month).

“I no longer have the big car because of the gas situation,” Mr. Towns said.

It turns out, however, that the Town Car and the MKX get the same gas mileage: about 16 m.p.g. in the city and 23 on the highway, according to the Department of Energy. House leaders were concerned enough about the issue that they sent a memo to members suggesting that they consider leasing hybrids, according to one lawmaker who leases. Still, among the New York and New Jersey delegation, only one member — Mr. McNulty — uses a hybrid, according to the best available information.

“I think more members are going to be going to the hybrids,” said Mr. McNulty.

Mr. McNulty would not offer an opinion of members who lease more luxurious cars. “I’m not going to judge another member’s decision,” he said. “Mine was utility.”

Other members stand out for their more downscale choices.

Representative Jim Saxton, a Republican of New Jersey, leases a 2004 Chevy TrailBlazer at what he views as a reasonable $310 a month.

“Congressman Saxton feels an elected public official should choose a car that doesn’t cost taxpayers an extravagant amount,” said Jeff Sagnip, his spokesman.

Of course, there are concerns beyond cost, other members say.

“I can tell you Lexus has one of the best services and is one of the most reliable cars I know,” said Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Queens Democrat, who leases a 2007 Lexus LS 460 at $998 a month. Mr. Meeks, interviewed a few feet from the House floor last week, seemed reluctant to go into detail, saying he was worried that a story about members’ cars could be “distorted” or negative.

“These are never lighthearted stories,” he said. His spokeswoman declined to discuss details of his leasing agreement.

Mr. Towns said leasing makes sense when you put as many miles on a car as he does traveling his Brooklyn district. He typically turns in the cars every few years. “After two years of traveling in the district, that’s a lot of wear and tear,” he said.

For Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a Buffalo-area Democrat, safety was a worry, given her sprawling district. Ms. Slaughter used to drive her personal car to get around, she said. Then, in 2002, her political rivals in the Legislature in Albany redrew her district, in what she viewed as a deliberate effort to force her from office.

The new map, she said, resulted in a vast swath of western New York that is treacherous to travel in winter. She turned to a 2007 Buick Lucerne, which she leases for $808.29 a month.

“For the longest time, I didn’t do it at all,” she said of leasing. But the Lucerne, she said, had good traction and, perhaps more important, came equipped with a satellite tracking system. “I figured if I got stuck in a snow bank people could find me,” she said. “If I’m in an accident, they might be able to find me and not have to wait until the thaw.”

Mr. Rangel said he frequently offers rides to constituents so they can discuss their concerns in the luxurious confines of his DeVille.

“I want them to feel that they are somebody and their congressman is somebody,” Mr. Rangel explained. “And when they say, ‘This is nice,’ it feels good.”

No, actually it feels very good to be a Dem these days. It feels great to know that the Dems will start getting this country back on track next year. :D
 

Steve

Well-known member
fff
No, actually it feels very good to be a Dem these days. It feels great to know that the Dems will start getting this country back on track next year.

yep after two years of control of congress... they'll do it next year... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
In 2007, the House adopted a rule requiring members to choose cars from a list of low-emissions vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about their cars over the past week, many New York representatives offered environmental rationales, some more persuasive than others.

----MY NOTE: 2007? Who was in charge of the House in 2007? Answer for those politically challenged: DEMOCRATS. :lol: :lol:----

Thanks for the help with that, ff. Yes, the Dems were in charge of the House in 2007. Does this qualify as one of the "low-emissions vehicles" that the Dems in control of the House approved? :???:

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

"It's like an airplane." :lol:

Of course, maybe Harlem Charlie had trouble finding the supposed "list" that you CLAIM your Dems put forth?

"The House in 2007 approved a rule requiring members to lease “low greenhouse-gas emitting vehicles” at the urging of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, DMo., who drives a car that runs on cooking oil. Higgins says he voted for the rule. But the House turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to provide a list of acceptable vehicles. The list, reportedly, has yet to materialize."

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/338509.html

Maybe I'm wrong, though - since I'm...what was it you called me? "Politically challenged"...yeah, that's it. Maybe the list is top secret? Or maybe it's just the white folk that have to use the list? :?

"It's like an airplane." :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
No, actually it feels very good to be a Dem these days. It feels great to know that the Dems will start getting this country back on track next year. :D

Does it feel good enough that you've got your "Obama for Prez" sign out by the road? Do you give out Obama signs and bumper stickers to all of your neighbors? Maybe have a neighborhood Obama party? :wink:

What about your bull customers? Do you tell them how happy your are to be a Democrat these days? A Democrat proudly supporting Obama? Is it that good to you? :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Texan said:
fff said:
In 2007, the House adopted a rule requiring members to choose cars from a list of low-emissions vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about their cars over the past week, many New York representatives offered environmental rationales, some more persuasive than others.

----MY NOTE: 2007? Who was in charge of the House in 2007? Answer for those politically challenged: DEMOCRATS. :lol: :lol:----

Thanks for the help with that, ff. Yes, the Dems were in charge of the House in 2007. Does this qualify as one of the "low-emissions vehicles" that the Dems in control of the House approved? :???:

Don't know, since BUSH's EPA hasn't come up with a list yet.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

"It's like an airplane." :lol:

Of course, maybe Harlem Charlie had trouble finding the supposed "list" that you CLAIM your Dems put forth?

I didn't claim it. It's in the Congressional Record.

"The House in 2007 approved a rule requiring members to lease “low greenhouse-gas emitting vehicles” at the urging of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, DMo., who drives a car that runs on cooking oil. Higgins says he voted for the rule. But the House turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to provide a list of acceptable vehicles. The list, reportedly, has yet to materialize."

The EPA falls under the Administration's control. Considering that the head of EPA overturned all his department head's recommendations to let CA set their own emission standards, it's not a major surprise that the EPA hasn't turned out a list yet. But the Dems did the right thing. It's like other bills, obstructionist Republicans refuse to go along with what's best for the country.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/338509.html

Maybe I'm wrong, though - since I'm...what was it you called me? "Politically challenged"...yeah, that's it. Maybe the list is top secret? Or maybe it's just the white folk that have to use the list? :?

"It's like an airplane." :lol:

I'm always glad to help those politically challenged to see the light. But I realize there are some that will choose to only see darkness.

No, it's that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION refuses to do anything that might damage oil company profits. For all their incompetence, they're doing well at that.

The Bush administration blocked efforts by California and 16 other states Wednesday to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, setting up a political and legal fight over whether states can take a lead role in combatting global warming.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected California's request for a waiver from the federal government to impose its tough tailpipe emissions standards. The other states were poised to adopt similar rules if California's request was granted.

The states represent nearly half the U.S. population, and their laws would effectively require automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide, despite President Bush's rejection of mandatory national standards.

Johnson said Congress' passage of an energy bill this week that raises fuel economy standards for all cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 made the state laws unnecessary. Bush signed the law Wednesday morning.

"It's important to put this in perspective - (the new law) applies to all 50 states," Johnson said. "Not 12 states, not 17 states, all 50 states. That is great from an environmental perspective."

California's 2002 statute would require automakers to cut emissions to 23 percent below current new-car levels by 2012 and 30 percent below by 2016, through a combination of better gas mileage, alternative fuels, reducing leaks from air conditioners and other new technologies.

California officials said they believed Johnson had long ago decided to oppose the state's waiver, and said he was using the newly passed energy bill as an excuse. Nothing in the new law prevents states from taking stronger action, they said.

"It's a phony argument and ridiculous on its face," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

"I find this disgraceful," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who helped write the fuel-economy law. "The passage of the energy bill does not give the EPA a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution."

It was the first time the EPA has flat-out denied a waiver request by California under the Clean Air Act. The law gives California special authority to set stronger standards because the state has a long history of smog and other air-quality problems.

But Johnson insisted the state's request had not met the "extraordinary and compelling conditions" required under the act to grant a waiver.

California officials already had laid the groundwork to sue EPA, assuming weeks ago the agency would deny the request. State officials said they plan to file suit as soon as the ruling is published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks.

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols called Johnson's justification "flimsy." State Attorney General Jerry Brown said he believes the courts will agree with the state's rationale for taking action, given the potential impacts on the state from global warming.

"It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars," Brown said.

The decision thrilled automakers, who have been fighting California's new rules in court and lobbying the administration to oppose the waiver. Automakers insist it will be too difficult to comply with 50 different state standards.

"We commend EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program," said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

The EPA announced its decision at an unusual news conference held at 6:30 p.m. EST, long after most news networks had finished work on their broadcasts. Johnson called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger just moments before the announcement, a call aides described as "terse."

Schwarzenegger complained that while the new federal law is a good step, it is not as far-reaching as California's efforts to dramatically cut emissions from all sources by 2050.

"It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation," he said in a statement.

Environmentalists said California's law is stronger than the new federal standards because it requires a 30 percent reduction in emissions four years before the federal law requires those cuts.

David Doniger, director of the Climate Policy Center for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA's ruling is flawed because the new energy law specifically allows states to set stronger standards.

"The energy law only sets a fuel-economy floor," he said. "It requires the administration to set standards of 'at least 35 miles per gallon,' expressly giving the administration the power to go farther. And the law expressly preserves California's authority under the Clean Air Act to set independent, stronger standards."

But the ruling will probably set back California's efforts to implement its rules, even if the state ultimately prevails in court. The law starts with 2009 model-year vehicles, which arrive in showrooms at the end of next year. Nichols said the state still has enough time to implement the rules if the courts act quickly.

Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder said even if there is a yearslong delay, "in the end, either the court will rule for us or Congress will step in or the next administration will change it," he said.

He said the Sierra Club and other groups, which have joined California in the waiver application, would sue to overturn Johnson's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., which has jurisdiction over the EPA's decision.

Although that court ruled in the EPA's favor in an earlier case over regulation of greenhouse gases, a ruling that the Supreme Court overturned in April, Bookbinder said he was confident of a favorable appellate decision.

Johnson is "dead wrong on the law," Bookbinder said.

Johnson also is likely to get an unfriendly reception on Capitol Hill. Boxer said Wednesday she plans to call the EPA administrator to explain his decision at a hearing in January.

California officials complained that EPA's decision-making process for the waiver was tainted months ago when documents revealed that Transportation Secretary Mary Peters led a lobbying campaign to urge lawmakers to call the EPA and oppose the waiver request.

Automakers have been meeting regularly at the White House to discuss the new fuel-economy standards. The Detroit News reported that Vice President Dick Cheney met with the CEOs of Chrysler and Ford this fall to try to influence the policy.

Johnson dodged a reporter's question Wednesday about the meetings between Cheney and the auto executives. But he added: "My decision was an independent decision."

Emissions limits
Background: California asked the EPA to grant a waiver to implement its rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks; 16 other states are pursuing similar rules.

What happened: EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected the request, saying California's rules are no longer needed now that Congress has passed new fuel-economy legislation.

What's next: California plans to sue EPA in federal court to overturn the decision, arguing that the state has authority under the Clean Air Act to set stronger standards.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/12/20/MN55U1JD6.DTL
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
...BUSH's EPA hasn't come up with a list yet.

fff said:
...the BUSH ADMINISTRATION refuses to do anything that might damage oil company profits...

So...you were bragging about the Dem Congress making members drive low-emission vehicles....


fff said:
In 2007, the House adopted a rule requiring members to choose cars from a list of low-emissions vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about their cars over the past week, many New York representatives offered environmental rationales, some more persuasive than others.

----MY NOTE: 2007? Who was in charge of the House in 2007? Answer for those politically challenged: DEMOCRATS. :lol: :lol:----


....but now it's Bush's fault that they never did anything about it? :?

"It's like an airplane." :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Texan said:
fff said:
...BUSH's EPA hasn't come up with a list yet.

fff said:
...the BUSH ADMINISTRATION refuses to do anything that might damage oil company profits...

So...you were bragging about the Dem Congress making members drive low-emission vehicles....


fff said:
In 2007, the House adopted a rule requiring members to choose cars from a list of low-emissions vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about their cars over the past week, many New York representatives offered environmental rationales, some more persuasive than others.

----MY NOTE: 2007? Who was in charge of the House in 2007? Answer for those politically challenged: DEMOCRATS. :lol: :lol:----


....but now it's Bush's fault that they never did anything about it? :?

"It's like an airplane." :lol:

Of course, it's Bush's fault. He runs the government. He appoints the head of the EPA. His adminstration has been in close contact with the auto makers to fight any requirement to increase gas mileage or tighten emission standards on US automobiles. Foreign made cars are kicking US automaker's butts, mainly because of better gas mileage and some improved emission claims!
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
Of course, it's Bush's fault. He runs the government. He appoints the head of the EPA. His adminstration has been in close contact with the auto makers to fight any requirement to increase gas mileage or tighten emission standards on US automobiles. Foreign made cars are kicking US automaker's butts, mainly because of better gas mileage and some improved emission claims!
"Of course, it's Bush's fault." LMAO. You don't think the Democrat-controlled House is competent enough to put out a list of vehicles of their own? You don't think they are capable of doing something that simple? :???:

"It's like an airplane." :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Texan said:
fff said:
Of course, it's Bush's fault. He runs the government. He appoints the head of the EPA. His adminstration has been in close contact with the auto makers to fight any requirement to increase gas mileage or tighten emission standards on US automobiles. Foreign made cars are kicking US automaker's butts, mainly because of better gas mileage and some improved emission claims!
"Of course, it's Bush's fault." LMAO. You don't think the Democrat-controlled House is competent enough to put out a list of vehicles of their own? You don't think they are capable of doing something that simple? :???:

"It's like an airplane." :lol:

Maybe they could come up with a list, but the resolution was written that the EPA would provide a list. I suppose that was to discourage individual Congressmen from trying to get their favorite car on the list. But so far BUSH's EPA hasn't seen fit to put the list together. Obviously that's not a major surprise. Bush/Cheney think they're king of the USA and doesn't feel their Administration has to anwer to anyone. We're at war, you know. :roll: And John McBush promises to give us more of the same.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Of course, it's Bush's fault. He runs the government. He appoints the head of the EPA. His adminstration has been in close contact with the auto makers to fight any requirement to increase gas mileage or tighten emission standards on US automobiles. Foreign made cars are kicking US automaker's butts, mainly because of better gas mileage and some improved emission claims!

What is wrong with the Free Market dictating what us consumers want? As you mentioned Foreign made cars are kicking the US auto makers butts, they did not need the government to tell them to get better mileage on your cars. When people get tired of buying gas for Hummers and Suburbans they will start buying the better gas mileage cars and the auto makers will make the change or go out of business.

Government needs to stay out of the free market. Us consumers can decide what we want and how much gas mileage we want.

The government should only do one thing, that is set a good example for us, but we see the Dem's in office don't want to do that, do they?
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Of course, it's Bush's fault. He runs the government. He appoints the head of the EPA. His adminstration has been in close contact with the auto makers to fight any requirement to increase gas mileage or tighten emission standards on US automobiles. Foreign made cars are kicking US automaker's butts, mainly because of better gas mileage and some improved emission claims!

What is wrong with the Free Market dictating what us consumers want? As you mentioned Foreign made cars are kicking the US auto makers butts, they did not need the government to tell them to get better mileage on your cars. When people get tired of buying gas for Hummers and Suburbans they will start buying the better gas mileage cars and the auto makers will make the change or go out of business.

Government needs to stay out of the free market. Us consumers can decide what we want and how much gas mileage we want.

Because there is no "Free Market." Governments are involved in most everything these days with subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. We all breath the same air. You don't get to fill it with junk just because you want to.

The government should only do one thing, that is set a good example for us, but we see the Dem's in office don't want to do that, do they?

If you'll read this thread, you'll see that the Dems want to set a good example by leasing low emission cars. But the BUSH adminstration's EPA hasn't come up with a list of cars that meet that criteria. Pay attention before you jump in next time; maybe you won't look so silly. :D
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Texan said:
I sure wouldn't deny that Republicans have plenty of ethical issues of their own. And Republicans have squandered PLENTY of money over the last few years. :x


fff said:
No, actually it feels very good to be a Dem these days. It feels great to know that the Dems will start getting this country back on track next year. :D

Perfect example of the different thinking of a Conservative and a Liberal. The conservative does not make excuses and realizes the problems of their own chosen party realizing they are the most logical of the two evils.

The Liberal is proud of their party and believes they offer hope, they trust their chosen politicians and are proud of them, no matter how many messed up things they do.
 
Top