HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Mara
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 18,821

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

Right

Vetting is entirely appropriate and within the scope of congressional authority but I think that, generally speaking, Senators, if they are refusing to confirm somebody, should be required have some substantive (i.e. REAL) reasons to vote against them. There's almost no reason I can think of to filibuster most nominees (though the Dems were certainly right to filibuster Bolton, who got put in with a recess appointment nonetheless). It is mind-boggling that they are able to manipulate things so that, even though they admit that they have no problems with Cordray specifically, they can still feel completely at ease with refusing to confirm him in order to kneecap a federal agency ESTABLISHED BY LAW and/or force changes to the law that they weren't able to achieve during the normal legislative process last time. IMHO they need to allow an up-or-down vote on the nomination to be held ASAP and then, if they want to change the law more to their liking, they need to put together relevant legislation and put it to a debate/vote. The way that the Republicans have been kneecapping the federal government, the economy, and Obama's Presidency in general is (or should be) nothing short of scandalous.

I didn't think about it at first but you're also right about the Republicans trying to make it seem like the agency doesn't even exist and/or that the agency has some kind of extraordinary unchecked powers. Actually, if anybody is trying to achieve something through extraordinary means, it's the Republicans in the Senate! They want to win changes that they know (or figure) that Congress and President Obama won't approve. In general, I'd say that the Republicans are basically trying to "run out the clock" until next November after which they believe (or hope) to have another Republican "trifecta".
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:24 PM (0 replies)

The agency already exists

Republicans may not like it but IMHO until or unless they submit legislation to alter or abolish it and said legislation becomes law, they need to quit playing games and preventing the agency from functioning as it currently exists BY LAW at this time. Senator Lugar (R-IN), when I once wrote him a letter applauding his confirmation of Jocelyn Elders for Surgeon General under Clinton, wrote back to me in response that he believed that a President was entitled to his nominees. Unfortunately, assuming that he is part of the GOP caucus participating in the filibuster against Mr. Cordray, Lugar doesn't seem to believe in this high-minded principle any longer. From what I can recall, the Democrats gave GWB most of his nominees as well, at least the ones necessary for keeping critical government agencies functioning and the Republicans, for the most part, didn't put up these kind of hurdles for most of Clinton's nominees. There needs to be some kind of general agreement on the part of the Senators that, absent some kind of extraordinary circumstances, whoever assumes the Presidency really should be able get his/her nominees confirmed, or at the very least, they should not be subjected to filibusters, secret holds, etc. It's really kind of scary when, earlier in his Presidency, it took an outbreak of Swine Flu for Obama to get his HHS Secretary (Sebelius) confirmed. The Republicans had better be thankful that THAT situation didn't turn out worse for the public and that federal intervention wasn't hamstrung by petty politicking.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:44 AM (1 replies)

Looking at this from a Social Work perspective

I strongly believe in the principle of "informed consent" and, in the context of sexual activity, both partners should, ideally, be open and honest with each other about things like HIV+ diagnosis, STDs, etc. prior to engaging in sexual activity so that both partners can make a decision about whether or not to engage in sexual activity and/or what kind of sexual activity they want to engage in and ensure appropriate protections. At the very least, everybody should consistently be utilizing safe(r) sex practices with new/non-monogamous partners. However, I have mixed feelings about whether or not disclosing HIV+ status prior to engaging in sexual activity should be considered criminal, unless, perhaps, there is provable malicious intent. People should ultimately make sure that they are protecting themselves and others when engaging in any kind of sexual activity and there is a legitimate public health interest in stemming the spread of HIV but I'm not sure that criminal sanctions are the best or most appropriate way to manage it, particularly since the fear of criminal sanctions might inadvertently inhibit communication/disclosure rather than encourage it.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Dec 12, 2011, 09:44 AM (0 replies)

Indeed

Republicans have been especially busy demonizing unions since 2011. Based on what's been happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, and, now, Indiana, I sincerely hope it blows up in their faces..........big time!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:50 AM (0 replies)

What people like this (and perhaps a lot more)

fail to understand is that "cutting taxes" doesn't translate in most people paying less because, of course, when they "cut taxes" that money is no longer available to fund programs/services that most average people rely on and then politicians have to either raise other taxes/revenue to make up the difference (more money out of your pocket) or cut services resulting in more unemployment and/or people paying out of their own pockets for things that used to be paid for out of your taxes (or simply not getting anymore). No matter how you slice it or dice it, "cutting taxes" is not always the wondrous thing that it is always portrayed as being, especially, of course, if it means that it helps the 1% get to avoid having to pay their fair share and the negative consequences fall back on the average person. We really need to figure out a way to get this message across to these people IMHO.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:05 AM (0 replies)

No kidding!

Look at what has happened just within the past decade

Election 2000

George W. Bush as (P)resident

9/11

Gitmo

Invasion/Occupation of Iraq

Torture="Enhanced Interrogation"=O.k.

Warrantless Wiretapping

Terri Schiavo

Social Security Privatization (attempted)

Sarah Palin

"Tea Party"

House Speaker John Boehner

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Feb 16, 2012, 06:25 PM (0 replies)

I think slightly earlier

with Bill Clinton's election in 1992. Nothing enraged the Republican right more than the fact that the Democrats won the WH. It was then that Newt Gingrich's rise first came into view and led the rest of the party against Clinton, as well as the concept of bipartisanship. Remember, Democratic victories are always treated by them as "apostasies" and "accidents" while Republican victories are treated as bold, sweeping mandates to enact their new/old policies.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sat Feb 18, 2012, 10:31 AM (1 replies)

Somebody should remind Rick

that no sane doctor is going to hold a gun to a woman's head and demand that she get an abortion if it is discovered that her child has a particular malady and that the family can make their own decisions about how they wish to proceed with the pregnancy. "Encouraged to" does not=Force. I suspect that people like him seem to regard knowledge that prenatal testing might uncover as dangerous simply because people might not make the same decision that they would when faced with difficult circumstances. However, families making their own decisions about their reproductive lives is how things are SUPPOSED to work in our (still mostly free) country. It really makes me mad that he would demand the same rights for himself and his family that he would actively deny other people.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 19, 2012, 03:50 PM (0 replies)

There is something definitely (very) weird going on

when the global price of gas goes down but the pump prices remain the same (or go up)?

BTW how exactly do Republicans (and the media) KNOW what is going to happen with gas prices? Good question to ask.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 19, 2012, 06:00 PM (1 replies)

WYSIWYG

with Santorum & Gingrich. Santorum has, at times, surprised me about how far out his views actually extend but I don't find either of them quite as "threatening" as Romney because Obama would crush either of them like a bug in the GE. Mitt worries me more because, some of his comments notwithstanding, has the kind of record- as Governor of Massachusetts- that people voting in GE might ultimately decide is "moderate" enough to win their support in a GE (if Romney can make it there). Romney is a panderer and would do whatever Grover Norquist wants him to do if he got elected POTUS but he just doesn't come off as being as "scary" or "unlikable" as Gingrich or Santorum and it will be harder for the Obama campaign to make him look as scary as Gingrich and Santorum.

Romney's "electability", as of late, has been challenged by the Republican Party but that is primarily because the party "base" has moved (and continues to move) further to the right and they command the most influence at the moment. It remains to be seen if Santorum can broaden his appeal to the "base" to the whole of the Republican Party. If he does, then he could very well knock Mitt out and win the nomination. If not, then he will be the latest "not-Romney" to enjoy a brief surge in popularity only to ultimately fade away just like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich have all done before him.

If he and Romney continue to tussle and neither achieves a commanding lead, I wouldn't be surprised for them to discuss a combined ticket. Romney could present the more "moderate" face of the ticket and Santorum would keep the fundies riled up and get them to the polls on Election Day. That, at least to me, would be the more worrisome scenario though the thought of Santorum being a heartbeat away from the Presidency would definitely energize the Democratic base as well and would probably cost Romney some independent support just Palin scared them away from voting for McCain in 2008.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 19, 2012, 07:16 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 Next »