That's a pretty small amount of money. Feinstein hubby's company got a contract for $300M in exchange for her vote to invade Iraq. That's graft, baby!
What is it with all the sexual inuendo by these old republican men? Ramming it down people's throats jerking us off into socialism (yes, this was actually spoken on the floor the other day after a disassociated rant about dems liking deviant behavior) These dirty old men need something to calm them down. Someone call Spitzer.
Oh no. There is no doubt that he sold out his principled position for only $750K. I'm glad we have uncovered how Obama was able to personally interject himself into the mundane business of the FAA's airport improvement program bureaucracy. Now we have him! To use his influence to steer $ to Stupak in a competitive bidding process under federal acquisition guidelines is a CRIME!!! Woo-hoo! Let's impeach Obama!!
That would be what, about a buck and a quarter per constituent? I mean I know the upper peninsula isn't affluent, but doesn't that seem to you like an awfully small bribe for a vote affecting " one sixth of the US economy." Or maybe it actually did just happen by chance. Or maybe that was just the sweetener and the real money is coming from Kenya or Che Guevara's estate or the boys from Brazil or something. Or maybe this is a stretch even in this debate...
That's my thought, after I looked at the NRCC link. It's something to keep an eye on, to investigate, but my gut reaction is that it's very unlikely he sold his vote for such a small amount of money. This ain't exactly the Cornhusker Kickback here.
All he did was a bunch of political grand-standing. Pro-life my ass, unless he truly is an idiot he knows that executive order is worth as much as the charmin I got at Wal-mart last night. I would think that a man in his position didn't get there without some sort of foresight. The foresight to see that once this bill was put into law that federally funded abortion would be brought up as a topic down the road. You ask yourself daily why Democrats in Congress can't get shit done, because too many of them don't know what they want or where the hell they stand.
Ah, the new talking point du jour. I'm not sure if republicans REALLY want to go down this road. I saw a clip with Scarborough going on and on about "backroom deals." Lawrence O'Donnell and him got into a real shouting match over this. O'Donnell was calling him out as a disingenuous hypocrite and correctly stated that every single bill Scarborough ever voted on in Congress included deal making to get votes. Now they are all acting as if this is the first time that a whip walked into someones office and cut deals. Republicans should keep in mind that they will one day regain the white house. When they do, every line on every tax return filed by every nominee will be scrutinized because that is the course they decided to go. In the Senate, when republicans take control, every bill will be filibustered. Now, every bill that comes for a vote will receive a couple of hundred reviews in the house and 50-60 reviews in the senate to see what deals were made. This is how our democracy works and now they want to "expose" these dirty deals. Frankly, I'm fine with the deals and I'm fine with the exposure. But don't sell me some bill of goods that this is all shockingly new. Now, I highly doubt that there are many flat out "bribes" going on in congress. Take this one for example. Was it coincidence? Maybe not. But I would be shocked if this money to improve airports in the UP hasn't been something that Stupak has been pushing for for some time. So, did he say, "I'd like to help out, but I want an executive order and by the way, I have been pushing for funding for airports in my district that are falling apart?" Maybe. I'll be the first to admit that it ain't pretty. At the same time, it will never change AND it is not unique to America nor is it unique to democracy. My guess is that within the tightly run Soviet Union that people cut deals all the time as they attempted to move up the political food chain. And before any one gets high and mighty and says "so now you are comparing us to the Soviet Union?" I invite you to go back and take a look at the negotiations that resulted in our union. There are hundreds of examples but slavery was a prime one. Abolishing slavery was a big plank for many northern colonies. When it got to be crunch time, the economic arguments of southern colonies won out and slavery was the chip in the poker game that secured the votes necessary to ratify the final document. Well, if the republicans WANT to go down this road, that's cool. Let's open up the books on all of the bills passed while these knuckleheads ran congress. Let's see if they vote for the reconciliation package that will remove the giveaways that were only in the senate bill because republicans were blocking a vote which required sweetheart deals for those final votes to get to 60.
Damn you like to hear yourself talk. The Republicans go down that road now just like the Democrats did a few years back. Its gone on for years and will continue to go on. Nothing new hear. I'd put this on par with the remark in another thread about pointing out that your opponent is an extremist. Same story, different verse.
Actually, no. I'd like to hear you talk with a single coherent argument to anything I've posted. I will patiently wait. Nice conclusion. Care to support it? This is a good old boys club. They don't typically go after the things that are their own life blood. Of course, you should not have any trouble providing us with examples since there is nothing new "hear" (Sic.) Let's make it easy. Take the medicare prescription drug plan since that was the biggest entitlement passed in decades. Why don't you link us to the democratic outrage over the deal making. No idea what you are referring to, but I'm guessing its pretty pointless.
For the record, I started responding to your OP after the backroom deal para. I scrolled down and saw the remaining 2000 words and came to the conclusion you like to hear yourself talk. Support that backdoor deals have gone on and will continue to go on? I'm pretty sure that goes without saying. But lets go back nearly 200 years, Missouri COMPROMISE comes to mind pretty quickly. You can classify that as a back room deal. Because a back room deal is well, a compromise. You give me something I want in return for something you want. In the case of the US Congress, votes to pass a contested bill. Next time you have a grammatical error in your response I'll be sure and point it out, dick. Good substance though. Want to hear yourself talk some more?
Then we agree that the latest and greatest republican strategy is pointless. There. 12 words asshole.
Oh, I don't know. If he started it to point out that it required a backroom deal to get a hotly contested bill passed, yeah. But, if he posted that as a forum to start ripping on Stupak, then no, because having a Rep. like that is beneficial to everyone...
I sometimes wonder if the outraged outrage over these backroom deals isn't because of the public's newfound hyper-involvement in politics and the 24-hour news channels. It seems like the people who scream the loudest about such deals are the ones whom either a) haven't been following politics all that long, or b) are selling something (airtime, books, etc.) to people who haven't been following politics all that long. It seems like the whining of a rookie. Or, to keep it shorter, "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." R.
You're apparently unaware that the "point" Stupak was trying to make was just meaningless. Bart wanted to do something that had already been done. The House does stuff. The Senate now needs 60 votes to do anything. THAT'S reality. I wonder if other areas got similar grants. If Stupak's airports were 3 of 1000 airports that got funding, it's obviously not a payoff.