Here is the new Lobby Law printed in its entirety:
"All lobbyists shall be rounded up and placed in internment camps where they will not be allowed to communicate with any living human beings, especially the gaurds."
Posted by TIKI AL at August 2, 2007 01:56 PMWhoa! A who's, who of bu$h bots!
Bennett (R-UT)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
I'm surprised McConnell isn't on the list.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 2, 2007 02:03 PM
And where was Uncle Ted Stephens? Busy with his corruption defense?
Posted by TIKI AL at August 2, 2007 02:06 PMThe GOP saying anything about earmarks is like Elton John saying he's straight. It just doesn't work. And the chance of the Patreaus report even resembling reality in Iraq is zero. But as long as Dicky is obeyed..
Posted by tempus at August 2, 2007 03:02 PMBesides, these GOP complaints will be rammed down their throats in 2009 when a Democratic Congress with larger majorities sends a tougher bill to a Democratic president.
Why wait until 2009? It shouldn't be all that difficult to draft a narrow bill which picks up the items left out of the bill to overcome the rePublicCan's tactic of refusing to appoint Senate conferees to a conference committee, the omission of which items is now producing the crocodile tears the rePublicCans are crying, and to find a couple of progressive legislators to introduce such a bill in the House and Senate. Get Harry and Nancy to bring it up for debate, oh, lets say around September, 2008, and give the rePublicCans the opportunity to put their votes where their tears are right before the election.
Posted by redstater at August 2, 2007 03:16 PMAre y'all going to tell me you're happy with the earmark "reform" section in this bill? It's nowjere near what was talked about in January. Nowhere near anything. The majority leader decides what to do with earmarks, whether they offend any of the new rules. Would you want Lott or Frist to have this same responsibility? I don't think so. The majority leader can decide how to hide earmarks from public view. No votes, no sponsors, just more money sent to wh knows where. No accountability!
Posted by peter at August 2, 2007 03:21 PMHow long did the GOoPers run the Congress again and could've passed some lobbying and ethics "reform"? Um, let me think,...oh yeah, the last 12 years in the House and 10 out of the last 12 years in the senate.
The stench of petr's intellectual dishonesty is so repulsive that his family probably makes him sleep out back in a two man GOoPer tent, wearin' his unwashed, filthy GOP clown suit.
Posted by euzoius at August 2, 2007 05:12 PMre:peter
What can you say about someone who thinks a pathetic pygmie would be a good president? LOL.
Well Senator Steven's is guaranteed to get that bridge now with this 'reform'. Those "bu$h bots" were looking for what Speaker of the whole House promised voters in January. This piece has virtually nothing of her promises in it. Dirty Harry never wanted any reform. Sen DeMint wanted to do away with earmarks. He was constantly shaming dirty Harry. He even used the Democratic House language in his proposal for earmark reform and was put down for it by dirty Harry. Yeah, lets rejoice for this new reform just passed by our Congress. Senator Steven's, tell those fifty people on that island the bridge is coming. Probably before the bridge in Minnesota is replaced!
Posted by peter at August 2, 2007 05:54 PM"Ditch Mitch" McConnell!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 2, 2007 06:15 PMYou're quoting Dimwit Demint who rubberstamped everything Bush wanted him to? LOL. You guys just reek of desperation. Can't say I blame you though. If I had to constantly make excuses for a lazy son of a gun who uses his initial as a name (how stupid!) I'd be screeching too. Well, you have a little over a year and a half to keep doing it. Perhaps you'll be like the rest of the fundies I know and drop out of politics completely.
Posted by Ga6thDem at August 2, 2007 06:28 PMeuzoius is so right!
McConnell, you had 12 fucking years to come up with something...
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave the measure a lukewarm endorsement.
"This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it," McConnell said. "But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law."
...not a damn thing happened during that time but continued corruption! McConnell's hypocrisy is endless!
And don't forget the "King of the Crackers"...
The White House did not immediately say whether Bush will sign the bill.
Calm down petey, bu$h will protect your republi-cons and their "culture of corruption". No way will he sign it!
Oh, and peter...change the "clown suit", you stink!
Take the 2005 Transportation Bill, it was soo loaded down with earmarks there was not enough to go for transportation needs like repairing or replacing the Minnesota bridge. Projects like the bridge to nowhere were getting funded first leaving left overs for the Transportation Departments. Sen. Stevens bridge will be built before the Minnesota bridge thanks to this nice reform bill passed by Sen Reid. Everybodies happy with their earmarks and these victims of the Minnesota bridge are left to pay the price of their happiness.
Posted by peter at August 3, 2007 09:37 AM